Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the need to revisit an unfortunate chapter in the FBI's history: the investigation of the FBI's actions at Ruby Ridge. While there have been a number of internal investigations of the FBI's actions at Ruby Ridge, the most recent investigation, sponsored by the Justice Management Division of the Department of Justice, was completed in 1999. The results of this investigation have raised serious questions about the integrity of the previous joint investigation by the Department of Justice and the FBI, which was completed in 1993. Among these questions is whether FBI supervisors who headed that previous investigation were personal friends of some of the senior executives they were investigating. These questions, and many others, were raised in the testimony of four FBI Agents who appeared at a Judiciary Committee Hearing on FBI Oversight, chaired by Senator Leahy, last month. These exemplary Agents exposed the double standard that has existed in how rank and file FBI Agents are punished versus FBI Senior Officials. So, you might think that the Justice Management Division's report would have cleared this matter up. Well, you'd be wrong. As a matter of fact, most of us didn't even realize the existence of this report until it was brought to light by the testimony of these Agents. It was also then that we found that Justice Management sat on this report for two years before releasing it internally in January of this year. And, despite clear and convincing evidence of irregularities in how FBI officials have been punished in this matter, Justice Management division has ruled that no new discipline would be imposed against any FBI personnel. One of the FBI Agents testifying at the hearing described this decision as ``outrageous'' and ``alarming.'' Three weeks ago, I joined Chairman Leahy and Senator Specter in requesting documents relating to the Justice Management Division's report. While the Department of Justice was responsive in providing the requested materials, many of these documents were subject to protection under the privacy act and our staffs could only review them for a short period of time. Once again, Senator Specter and I have joined Chairman Leahy, along with Ranking Member Hatch, and Senator Kohl, to request that these documents be provided again, this time with appropriate redactions to comply with Privacy act concerns. I ask that this letter be made part of the Record. Less than twenty-four hours ago we confirmed the nomination of Robert Mueller to head the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Mueller stated, as their new Director, the FBI would be honest and forthright about mistakes. While, I understand that the mistakes of Ruby Ridge did not occur on Mr. Mueller's watch I truly believe that the FBI will never truly make a clean break with the past unless matters such as these are resolved.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise to express my deep concern about the apparent lack of emphasis by the Department of Defense on the counterdrug mission. This has been a year of continual discussion of increased DoD funding for various military missions. However, all the indications I am hearing point to a decreased DoD interest in this mission, as well as decreased funding levels. I believe this would be a poor policy decision, and a poor indication of the nation's priorities. In May 2001 testimony, before the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, on which I served as Chairman, the heads of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Customs Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard all testified that DoD reductions would be detrimental to their agencies' counterdrug efforts. The Office of National Drug Control Policy summarized that (quote) DoD's command and control system provides the communications connectivity and information system backbone . . . while the military services detection and monitoring assets provide a much need intelligence cueing capability (end quote). The Commandant of the Coast Guard testified at length about DoD counterdrug support, stating (quote) [w]e would go downhill very quickly (end quote) without DoD contributions. The Commandant also stated that 43 percent of Coast Guard seizures last year were from U.S. Navy vessels, using onboard Coast Guard law enforcement detachments. The Coast Guard concluded that (quote) [s]hould there be any radical reduction of the assets provided through the Department of Defense . . . it would peril the potential for all the other agencies to make their contributions as productive . . . mainly because of the synergy that is generated by the enormous capability that the 800-pound gorilla brings to the table . . . They are very, very good at what they do. They are the best in the world . . . and when they share those capabilities . . . in terms of intelligence fusion and command and control, we do much better than we would ever otherwise have a chance to do (end quote). I understand that an internal review of DoD's drug role contemplated severe reductions as a working assumption. After years of decline in DoD's role in this area, I believe this sends the wrong signal and flies in the face of DoD's statutory authority. I have consistently supported an integrated national counterdrug strategy. If we reduce the DoD role, we risk lessening the effectiveness of other agencies as well. We need to make these decisions carefully, and with full Congressional involvement. I urge the Department of Defense to keep in mind DoD's important role in, and necessary contribution to, a serious national drug control strategy.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise to support the nomination of Robert Mueller to be the Director of the FBI. I also want to thank my friend, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for holding a hearing and a committee vote on Mr. Mueller's nomination this soon after President Bush's forwarding of Mr. Mueller's nomination to the Senate. It is my hope that when we return from summer recess, we will be able to keep the same pace with President Bush's many other critical nominees. Mr. Mueller will have a big job in front of him as the new Director of the FBI. The Bureau is plagued with culture problems which have eroded the public's confidence in their ability to effectively investigate crime and apprehend criminals. The senior management of the FBI has fostered a culture of arrogance that has produced abuse of power and coverup. The FBI has been embarrassed time and again by the misconduct of its senior management. First there were the tragedies at Waco and Ruby Ridge. The FBI retaliated against Dr. Fred Whitehurst after he blew the whistle on the FBI crime labs. There was also the botched investigation into the Wen Ho Lee matter and the FBI's failure to turn over evidence to the defense in the Timothy McVeigh trial. As an ardent advocate of FBI reform, what often gets lost in my comments is the respect that I have for the thousands of men and women serving their country as FBI employees. My criticisms of the FBI's management culture should in no way minimize the great sacrifices that our honest and hardworking FBI agent and support personnel make every day for our country. But these men and women, as well as the American people, deserve a law enforcement organization that has integrity and credibility. The FBI management system is broken, and this does a real disservice to the hardworking agents on the street. Mr. Mueller and I met in my office a few weeks ago to discuss this culture of arrogance and his plans for reform. In the three short weeks since that meeting, the FBI's culture of arrogance has continued to raise its ugly head. Just a week after the meeting, the national papers were filled with headlines that the FBI couldn't find its guns. The FBI has lost or had stolen from them 440 firearms and 171 laptop computers. The Inspector General is currently conducting an investigation to determine the extent of the damages, but we do know that one of the lost guns was used in the commission of a homicide and at least one of the laptops contained classified information about two espionage cases. A day after that revelation, four senior FBI agents testified before the Judiciary Committee that the Bureau has dual standard for the disciplining of employees. According to these men, Senior Executive Service employees are given slaps on the wrists for their infractions, while the rank and file agents are often punished to the letter of the law. Most recently, last Thrusday, the public saw a good example of how some SES employees abuse their power: The Washington Times reported that a group of FBI managers staged a conference entitled ``Integrity in Law Enforcement'' that we merely a sham and a cover, so that senior FBI managers could obtain improper reimbursements for traveling to a retirement party for veteran agent Larry Potts. The Washington Times further reported that ``no one was disciplined other than to receive letters of censure.'' This lack of discipline directly counters the letter of the law. In 1994, Director Freeh issued a ``Bright Line'' memo dictating that voucher fraud and the making of false statements would result in dismissal. Had the rank and file done this, they would have been fired. These most recent FBI blunders are further eroding public confidence that the FBI is up to the task their Nation has called upon them to do. But, not all the news is bad. In the weeks since our meeting, the Attorney General has issued an order to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General. The Inspector General will not have primary jurisdiction over allegations of misconduct against employees of the FBI and DEA. This is an important and encouraging step toward overall FBI reform. I hope it will help to solve the problems that the FBI has with their management culture. Previous to this, the Inspector General could not initiate an investigation within the FBI or DEA, without expressed permission from the Deputy Attorney General. I have been saying for many years that the FBI should not be allowed to police itself, and I am encouraged by this new step toward the establishment of a free and independent oversight entity. Along these same lines, Senator Leahy and I will soon be offering a bill to make permanent what the Attorney General's Order accomplished regarding oversight of the Bureau and the reporting of misconduct by FBI employees. This bill is critical to having lasting reform. In order for a true change in the FBI's management culture to occur, there must be vigorous oversight by an independent IG, as well as by the Congress. With the Attorney General's order and the work of the Senate Judiciary Committee, there will be oversight. But, there must also be a strong leader known for honesty and integrity at the helm of the Bureau. Mr. Mueller has sterling credentials and a great deal of experience. He has also impressed me with his history of reform while the U.S. Attorney for San Francisco. A similar overhaul is needed at the FBI. However, I'm converned that Mr. Mueller still doesn't fully comprehend the culture problems that exist at the FBI. As the new Director, he must be committed to fundamentally changing the Bureau's management culture. That being said, I am suporting Mr. Mueller's nomination. Based on this responses to the concerns that I have raised with him, the commitments he has made to reform the culture of the FBI, as well as the many recommendations he has received in support of this nomination, I trust that he will be able to institute the much needed reform of the FBI's management culture. I will be voting to confirm Mr. Mueller to be director of the FBI.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the issue of the cloture vote that is upcoming. I also rise to speak on the amendment that is pending called the Murray-Shelby amendment, which is in violation of NAFTA. As a person who believes very much in reducing barriers to trade between countries--and particularly for the benefit of America because other countries have much higher barriers than the United States--as we bring down barriers to trade and other countries, going to our level, it is obviously going to help the United States have a more level playing field in order to export our products and to be able to do it in a way that creates jobs in America. We all know export-related jobs are jobs that pay 15 percent above the national average. While we have had a very big expansion in trade as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement between the countries of Canada, the United States, and Mexico, we now have a rider on this bill providing an opportunity to put in place some restrictions which may in fact bring retaliatory action on the part of Mexico. Obviously, when I hear a threat against American agricultural products as one form of retaliation, it gets my attention, being from an agricultural State, particularly when we work so hard to get lower barriers on trade in these international agreements. Quite frankly, barriers to trade are much greater on agriculture than they are for manufactured products and for services, because the worldwide tariff on agricultural products is 45 percent, whereas for most other products the average is about 10 percent to 12 percent. U.S. tariffs and obstacles to trade are very low in agriculture compared to other countries. As indicated in a letter, which I cosigned, to our colleagues for them to consider when voting on this provision of the bill, I am as concerned about safety of trucks from other countries using our highways. But I also understand that our Department of Transportation is also concerned about that and is going to put in place very shortly the very successful California system for inspection of trucks so we can make sure the trucks and drivers from other countries are using our highways safely. But it was suggested yesterday by the Economic Minister of Mexico that if the Senate approves this provision and it becomes law, as the Reuters news article of yesterday indicated, ``It would leave us''-- meaning the country of Mexico--``with no other recourse than to take measures against the United States.'' The Economic Minister of Mexico, according to this report, said one option would be to block imports of high-fructose corn syrup from the United States. This issue has already been one source of friction between our two countries. Mexico has already been placing prohibitive tariffs on our sweeteners. The United States won a World Trade Organization decision against Mexico on this issue. We will be putting in jeopardy the compliance of that measure if they retaliate. I don't know why any Member of the Senate from an agricultural State--a very important industry in their respective States--would want to vote in support of the Shelby-Murray provision if there were a chance of retaliation against agricultural products, particularly those from the Middle West where corn is such an important agricultural product, and put in jeopardy our exports to China along the lines of the threat of the Economic Minister of Mexico. I call upon Members of both parties who understand the importance of agriculture and understand the importance of our ability to export our agricultural production. We produce 40 percent more than we consume domestically, and the profitability of agriculture is very much tied to exports. Why would they want to do anything that would bring retaliation against American agriculture, particularly in the Midwest with products such as corn? I hope every Member in every state where agriculture is an important product, where they are concerned about profitability of agriculture, and where they are particularly concerned about the ability to export our products, will consider the threat of the Economic Minister of Mexico and what they might do in retaliation. We ought to abide by the spirit of the North American Free Trade Agreement and reject the provisions of the appropriations bill that would restrict some of the international obligations of the United States. I hope every Member will make sure they see their vote as a vote that could negatively affect American agriculture, particularly as it affects corn farmers in America. Why would anybody want to hurt American agriculture by voting for this provision? American agriculture has benefited from the North American Free Trade Agreement. We are exporting much more agricultural products to Mexico than we did 7 years ago when this agreement was put in place. We should respect the spirit of it. International trade is a two-way street. We cannot expect just to export everything to other countries and not import as well. I want to make sure that people understand that this vote could be potentially negative to American agriculture. I ask them to consider that. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter from Lee Klien, president of the National Corn Growers Association, and Charles F. Conner, president of the Corn Refiners Association, speaking to their concern about the Murray-Shelby amendment and asking us to take into consideration the position of the Mexican Government, that they might retaliate against American agriculture, particularly American corn and corn products exported to Mexico.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Biden in introducing a bi-partisan resolution designating September 24, 2001 as ``Family Day: A Day to Eat Dinner With Your Children.'' This resolution recognizes the benefits of eating dinner as a family, especially as a way to keep children from using illegal drugs, tobacco, and alcohol. Many of us here in this Chamber are parents, and some of us are even grand parents. We know the trials and difficulties of raising children. But we also know the rewards, as a father, one of my proudest moments is seeing the success of my children as they raise their own families. What I know, what many parents have come to realize, and what we are trying to emphasize through Family Day, is spending time with your children, having dinner with them regularly, is one of the best ways to develop and maintain a healthy family, and encourage our children to make healthy choices. Senator Biden spoke about the most recent survey from the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. And those are scary numbers, but also hopeful ones. Kids listen. Teens do recognize what their parents say. They see what their parents do. Communication is the key to all of this, and communication at the dinner table is a wonderful place for this to happen. All of this shows how essential it is for parents to get involved in their children's lives. The family unit is the backbone of this country. Solutions to our drug problems involve all of us working together. Parents and communities must be engaged and I am committed to help making that happen. Parents need to provide a strong moral context to help our young people know how to make the right choices. They need to know how to say ``no,'' that saying no is okay, that saying no to drugs is the right thing to do--not just the safe or healthier thing, but the right thing. I am pleased to join with Senator Biden, the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, and the National Restaurant Association in designating September 24, 2001, as ``Family Day: a Day to Eat Dinner With Your Children.'' I urge our colleagues to join us.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. We are in morning business, is that right?

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the tax relief for working families that the Senate passed a few weeks ago and was signed into law by President Bush. This is the second in a series of speeches I am giving to highlight the details of this bipartisan tax cut that provided significant relief to millions of Americans. In today's speech I want to focus on the many provisions in the bipartisan bill that provide tax relief for working families and particularly families with children. First, I wish to discuss the efforts to address the marriage penalty that existed throughout the structure of the income tax. For far too many years, the Tax Code penalized working families where both the husband and wife work. It is simply wrong that we had a Tax Code that penalized marriage. The bipartisan tax cut completely ends the marriage penalty for many low- and middle-income families and makes significant strides in reducing the marriage penalty for all other families. This is accomplished through two actions. First, the bill provides that the standard deduction for those who are married filing jointly will be set at two times the rate of a single individual. For example, when everyone filed their tax returns this last April 15, the standard deduction for singles was $4,400. However, the standard deduction for married filing jointly was only $7,350. If the new tax law had been fully enacted for tax year 2000, the standard deduction for married filing jointly would have been $8,800. The second step we took was for the 10 percent and 15 percent marginal rate brackets for married filing jointly to be set at two times the rate of a single individual. Again, to illustrate. If the first $6,000 of a single individual is taxed at 10 percent, then the first $12,000 of a married individual filing jointly will be taxed at 10 percent. These two efforts will provide complete elimination of the marriage penalty for low- and many middle-income working families and will also benefit married couples with higher incomes. Keep in mind, Mr. President, almost one-half of married couples take the standard deduction. These couples tend to be in the lower income brackets and they will get relief upfront. The doubling of the 10 percent marginal rate bracket is done immediately. The remainder of marriage penalty relief is phased in over several years. The increase in the standard deduction is phased in over a 5-year period beginning in 2005 and the doubling of the 15 percent rate bracket also is phased in beginning in 2005 and is phased in over a 4-year period. Many Senators were active in providing marriage penalty relief, but certainly Senator Hutchison of Texas was a leader in this issue. Mr. President, let me take a moment to address the point some pundits have made about the fact that some of the marriage penalty relief provisions, as well as other provisions in the bill, are phased in. The requirement of phase-ins simply reflects the reality of the guidance we were provided by the budget resolution. The budget resolution effectively requires us to phase in these, and other, provisions in the bipartisan tax bill. The budget resolution allows for more tax cuts over time as the economy grows and we see greater surpluses year-by-year. The last piece of the bill that addresses marriage penalty is an expansion of the earned income credit, EIC, for married families with children. The EIC provides a cash payment to low-income working families. EIC is targeted particularly to help working families with children. The EIC provision in the tax bill extends out the point at which the EIC begins to phase out for married families with children by $1,000 in 2002 increased to $3,000 by 2008. For example, this year, the EIC begins to phase out for married families with two children at roughly $13,000 of income. Under the new law, next year, the phase out for EIC will be approximately $14,000. The EIC program directly benefits working families with children and this expansion sends a strong message to married couples that hard work will be rewarded under the tax code. The extension of the EIC is certainly a tribute to Senator Jeffords' hard work. All told, approximately $60 billion in tax reductions and outlays were devoted to addressing the marriage penalty. This bipartisan legislation provides marriage penalty relief to every family that pays income tax. In addition, millions of families who pay only payroll taxes, receive marriage penalty relief. This is the most significant marriage penalty relief in over 30 years. And I would say 30 years is a long time. Finally, we're recognizing the value of marriage and stable families. Mr. President, I have outlined the efforts to address marriage penalty in the bipartisan tax bill, and as you can see these provisions are strongly geared toward providing relief for low-and middle-income married couples. Let me turn now, to another provision, the expansion of the child credit. The increase of the child credit will be a major benefit to the lives of millions of children in this country. Under prior law, the child credit is $500 and only available to families that pay income tax. Further, this child credit phases out for single parents with income over $75,000 and $110,000 for married individuals filing jointly. The bipartisan tax relief bill inreases the child credit to $600 immediately, and over time increases it to $1,000. The bill protects middle income families from being hit by the alternative minimum tax, AMT, because of the child credit by making the child credit allowable against AMT. This provision helps ensure that middle-income families will realize the full benefit of the child credit. The AMT relief for middle-income families is due to Senator Lincoln's strong advocacy. In addition to increasing the child credit, the tax relief bill provides that millions of low-income children who previously did not benefit from the child credit because their parents did not have sufficient taxable income will now also benefit from the child credit. The bipartisan tax relief bill makes the child credit refundable for 16 million kids. This expansion of the child credit program to low-income families happens immediately. I would say that this is a hallmark of the bill, that we sought to have provisions that help low- and middle-income families take place as soon as possible. The refundable child credit provides that for every $1,000 above $10,000 that a family with a child makes, they will get $100 in child credit, up to the maximum amount of the child credit. In essence, a bonus of 10 percent for every dollar the working family makes over $10,000. For example, a single mother with one child making $16,000 will now get a check for $600. This is over and above the amount that single mother would receive from EIC. Thus, this single mother will pay no income taxes and will receive EIC as well as an additional $600. Mr. President, let me make that clear: Last year, that single mom did not get one dime of child credit, this year because of this legislation that working mother will get a check for $600. How many times have we heard complaints from the harsh critics of this legislation that it does nothing for those who pay only the payroll tax. That is just plain wrong. Under this legislation, the working mom, who pays no income tax receives a refund for this year of $600. Now, it doesn't come in the checks, but she gets it through an even bigger paycheck. Let's take a look at another example: Under this example, a married couple with two children making $20,000 will now get $1000 from the new expanded child credit and will also benefit from the expansion of the EIC for married couples with children. Again, that is $1000 that family did not receive last year and now will receive because of the bipartisan tax cut. Even better news for these families, the ten percent rate of payment for the child credit will increase from 10 percent to 15 percent in 2005. For example, the single mother I cited above, would get a 15-percent bonus for every dollar above $10,000 and given that the child credit will be increased to $700 in 2005, that single mother will receive the entire $700 child credit. It is estimated that 16 million children from low-income working families will benefit from this expansion of the child credit. We have a lot of complaints from the critics of this legislation that low- income kids are left out. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let me report 16 million children benefit right away from this bipartisan legislation. There is no question that the expansion of the child credit and EIC is a tremendous benefit to millions of working families. Approximately $170 billion of the bipartisan tax relief bill is dedicated to the child tax credit. It is particularly vital that we make sure that hardworking families that pay no income tax are made aware of these new benefits that are available to them. It is also important that these families hear an important message of this bill: work pays. We have sent out a notice to millions of Americans who pay income tax telling them the check is in the mail. However, we haven't informed the millions of American families with children who work full-time, but do not pay income tax, about the enormous benefits this tax relief bill has for their families. I intend to write Secretary Thompson of HHS and Secretary O'Neill of Treasury encouraging them to seek avenues that will educate and inform working Americans about these new provisions that put real money in the pockets of working families. I am particularly concerned that there be outreach to the millions of new Americans that speak Spanish, Vietnamese, Russian, and dozens of other tongues. There is no doubt in my mind that this outreach to inform low-income families about the new child credit and expanded EIC is necessary. For clearly, anyone reading the New York Times or the Washington Post would have very little idea that the Congress passed, and President Bush signed into law, legislation that provides such great benefits to low- income families. For example, the Washington Post on June 24, 2001, provided a summary of the tax provisions giving examples of the tax relief for different families at different incomes. Every example starts at $25,000 or higher. Not a single example is given of the benefits of this legislation for a mother making say $14,000, $16,000, or $18,000. Nor is there a single example of the benefits for a married couple with two children that is making $17,000, $25,000, or $30,000. I am stunned that these newspapers, that claim to be champions of working families, would completely ignore these major new benefits. Maybe the simple truth is they're a little embarrassed to admit that this bipartisan tax relief bill signed by President Bush actually does a great deal to help millions of working families that struggle to escape poverty. So clearly there is a need to educate and inform because the newspaper editors are deciding that ``all the news that's fit to print'' is only news of interest to their middle-income and high-income readers and not their low-income readers. Let me also add, that when we come to revisit welfare reform, I think it is important to bear in mind the billions of dollars that have been provided in this bill to encourage struggling families to enter the workforce or expand the number of hours they work. Too often, we get focused on the welfare-specific provisions and completely forget or ignore the major efforts to encourage work that are contained in the Tax Code. Mr. President, that highlights the significant efforts the tax bill had to expand and increase the child credit. While many Senators were advocates of increasing the already existing child credit, and several Senators supported expanding the child credit and making it refundable--there is no question that Senator Snowe was the key to making it a reality. Now, I would like to discuss the provisions in the bipartisan tax bill to help working families meet the costs of child care. The tax bill helps with the costs of child care in two provisions. First, the tax relief bill provides greater incentives for employer- provided child care with the creation of a tax credit for employer- provided child care facilities. The tax relief act provides taxpayers a tax credit equal to 25 percent of qualified expenses for employer-provided child care and 10 percent of qualified expenses for child care resource and referral services. The maximum credit is $150,000 per year. This is $1.4 billion in tax incentives to encourage businesses to assist in providing child care for their workers. This new tax initiative will help mothers and fathers to obtain child care--and hopefully child care near their place of work which will allow them the opportunity to spend more time with their children. Senator Kohl has long advocated this proposal and deserves great credit for making this part of the Tax Code. The second provision regarding child care expands the already existing dependent care tax credit. This is a tax credit that particularly helps low- and middle-income families who pay for child care for their young children. Thanks to Senator Jeffords' work, the bipartisan tax bill expands this program and will allow low and middle income families to take as a tax credit more of their costs of child care. The tax bill provides nearly $3 billion in additional tax relief for working families struggling to meet the costs of having their children in day care. Thus, the bipartisan tax bill helps working mothers and fathers by encouraging employers to provide child care and also easing the cost burden of child care. Let me turn now to the final provision I wish to discuss today in this speech that focuses on the provisions in the bipartisan tax relief bill that help working families and children. That provision is the expansion of the adoption tax credit. I have long been a strong advocate of encouraging adoptions and know it brings joy to the children and the families. I am very pleased that the tax bill provides significant encouragement for families to adopt and reduces the costs of adopting parents. Prior law provided for a $5,000 tax credit for qualified adoption expenses paid or incurred by a taxpayer in making an adoption. That amount was $6,000 for a special needs child. This full tax credit amount started to phaseout for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income of over $75,000. I am very pleased that the bipartisan legislation signed by President Bush increases the tax credit up to $10,000 for qualified adoption expenses and $10,000 for special needs children, regardless of whether there are qualified adoption expenses. In addition, the new tax law expands the number of families eligible to take advantage of the adoption tax credit by having the credit begin to phaseout at $150,000 modified adjusted gross income. This is a major expansion of the adoption tax credit and provides over $3 billion in tax incentives for families to adopt. Senators Craig and Landrieu are to be commended for their efforts in this matter. Mr. President, that concludes my comments today on the tax relief act. As is plainly true, the tax relief accomplishes President Bush's goal of giving back the people's money. What is also plain and true is that a great deal of the tax relief is focused on helping working families with children. I know many in the Capitol are very upset about the bipartisan tax bill because the tax relief means less money for them to spend. Incredibly, the Democratic leader in the other body has called for a tax increase. But let me assure my colleagues, we do far better by allowing working families to keep more of their hard-earned money. The benefits of the tax relief bill will be realized in millions of small, unseen, quiet acts and decisions that don't make the evening news and unfortunately for the politicians, don't involve cutting ribbons and making speeches. I see working families now, because of the bipartisan tax bill, having more money in their pocket and being able to finally do the things they've planned or hoped for: be it buying a computer for their children; moving to a bigger apartment in a neighborhood with better schools; or purchasing healthier food for the dinner table. These are just a few examples of the multitude of priorities that only the families can best decide--and not the bureaucrats in Washington. It is my belief that with families getting to keep more of their hard-earned paycheck--the quiet talks at the kitchen table, after the children have been put to bed, will be more about opportunities and possibilities rather than fears and concerns. Mr. President, I hope this speech will make those who have recently called for a tax increase to think again. My hope is that they may now better appreciate the enormous benefits of this legislation and think long and hard before they try to undermine its accomplishments.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for years I have worked to decrease our reliance on foreign sources of energy and accelerate and diversify domestic energy production. I believe public policy ought to promote renewable domestic production that burns clean energy. For this reason, I will be introducing the Providing Opportunities With Effluent Renewables, or POWER Act today which cultivates another homegrown resource: swine and bovine waste nutrients. Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code provides a production tax credit for electricity produced from renewable sources. Currently, the production tax credit is available for wind, closed-loop biomass, and poultry waste. The POWER Act will modify Section 45 to include swine and bovine waste nutrient as a renewable energy source. The benefits of swine and bovine waste nutrient as a renewable resource are enormous. Right now, there are at least 20 dairy and hog farms in the United States that use an anaerobic digester or similar systems to convert manure into electricity. These facilities include swine and/or dairy operations in California, Wisconsin, New York, Connecticut, Vermont, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado, Minnesota, and my home State of Iowa. By using animal waste as an energy source, a livestock producer can reduce or eliminate monthly energy purchases from electric and gas suppliers. In fact, a dairy operation in Minnesota that uses this technology generates enough electricity to run the entire dairy operation, saving close to $700 a week in electricity costs. This dairy farm also sells the excess power to their electrical provider, furnishing enough electricity to power 78 homes each month, year round. The benefits of using an anaerobic digester do not end at electricity production. Using this technology can reduce and sometimes nearly eliminate offensive odors from the animal waste. In addition, the process of anaerobic digestion results in a higher quality fertilizer. The dairy farm I referenced earlier estimates that the fertilizing value of the animal waste is increased by 50 percent. Additional environmental benefits include mitigating animal waste's contribution to air, surface, and groundwater pollution. With all the problems that this type of opportunity remedies, I'm sure there will be a number of folks wondering why we haven't tried this before. The reason is, even if we had provided swine and bovine producers with tax incentives to produce renewable energy, they probably wouldn't have had access to the capital necessary for infrastructure development. In fact, there was a segment on National Public Radio last week addressing the topic of anaerobic digester energy production. A professor from Cal State University who is an expert on anaerobic digesters was interviewed. The professor explained that the main reason farmers have not pursued this type of opportunity is cost. For that reason, in addition to the tax credit opportunity I'm providing under section 45, I'm also going to guarantee within the POWER Act that funds be made available under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program for the development of anaerobic digesters. Currently, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program provides funding for technical, educational, and financial assistance to farmers and ranchers for soil, water, and related natural resource concerns on their land. A component of the program allows for improvements to farm manure management systems. The POWER Act will guarantee that payments, up to two years worth of funding which currently amount to $100,000, would be made available to producers for ``cost sharing'' opportunities related to anaerobic digester implementation. Using swine and bovine waste nutrient as an energy source can cultivate profitability while improving environmental quality. Maximizing farm resources in such a manner may prove essential to remain competitive and environmentally sustainable in today's livestock market. In addition, more widespread use of this technology will create jobs related to the design, operation, and manufacture of energy recovery systems. The development of renewable energy opportunities will help us diminish our foreign energy dependence while promoting ``green energy'' production. This tax/farmbill proposal is real ``win-win'' situation for America and for our livestock producers. Using swine and bovine waste nutrient is a perfect example of how the agriculture and energy industries can come together to develop an environmentally friendly renewable resource. My legislation will foster increased investment and development in waste to energy technology thereby improving farmer profitability, environmental quality, and energy productivity and reliability. Why should we promote swine and bovine waste nutrient as an energy source? Consider the recent electricity shortage in California, the sky-high prices at the pump throughout last year and the soaring cost of home heating fuel and natural gas this winter. We have an obligation to consumers across the country to accelerate the nation's production of homegrown, clean-burning, renewable sources of energy. The POWER Act is good for agriculture, good for the environment, good for energy consumers, and promotes a good, make that great, renewable resource that will reduce our energy dependence on foreign fuels. It is my hope that all of my colleagues join with me to advance this important piece of legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for years I have worked to decrease our reliance on foreign sources of energy and accelerate and diversify domestic energy production. I believe public policy ought to promote renewable domestic production that burns clean energy. For this reason, I will be introducing the Providing Opportunities With Effluent Renewables, or POWER Act today which cultivates another homegrown resource: swine and bovine waste nutrients. Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code provides a production tax credit for electricity produced from renewable sources. Currently, the production tax credit is available for wind, closed-loop biomass, and poultry waste. The POWER Act will modify Section 45 to include swine and bovine waste nutrient as a renewable energy source. The benefits of swine and bovine waste nutrient as a renewable resource are enormous. Right now, there are at least 20 dairy and hog farms in the United States that use an anaerobic digester or similar systems to convert manure into electricity. These facilities include swine and/or dairy operations in California, Wisconsin, New York, Connecticut, Vermont, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado, Minnesota, and my home State of Iowa. By using animal waste as an energy source, a livestock producer can reduce or eliminate monthly energy purchases from electric and gas suppliers. In fact, a dairy operation in Minnesota that uses this technology generates enough electricity to run the entire dairy operation, saving close to $700 a week in electricity costs. This dairy farm also sells the excess power to their electrical provider, furnishing enough electricity to power 78 homes each month, year round. The benefits of using an anaerobic digester do not end at electricity production. Using this technology can reduce and sometimes nearly eliminate offensive odors from the animal waste. In addition, the process of anaerobic digestion results in a higher quality fertilizer. The dairy farm I referenced earlier estimates that the fertilizing value of the animal waste is increased by 50 percent. Additional environmental benefits include mitigating animal waste's contribution to air, surface, and groundwater pollution. With all the problems that this type of opportunity remedies, I'm sure there will be a number of folks wondering why we haven't tried this before. The reason is, even if we had provided swine and bovine producers with tax incentives to produce renewable energy, they probably wouldn't have had access to the capital necessary for infrastructure development. In fact, there was a segment on National Public Radio last week addressing the topic of anaerobic digester energy production. A professor from Cal State University who is an expert on anaerobic digesters was interviewed. The professor explained that the main reason farmers have not pursued this type of opportunity is cost. For that reason, in addition to the tax credit opportunity I'm providing under section 45, I'm also going to guarantee within the POWER Act that funds be made available under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program for the development of anaerobic digesters. Currently, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program provides funding for technical, educational, and financial assistance to farmers and ranchers for soil, water, and related natural resource concerns on their land. A component of the program allows for improvements to farm manure management systems. The POWER Act will guarantee that payments, up to two years worth of funding which currently amount to $100,000, would be made available to producers for ``cost sharing'' opportunities related to anaerobic digester implementation. Using swine and bovine waste nutrient as an energy source can cultivate profitability while improving environmental quality. Maximizing farm resources in such a manner may prove essential to remain competitive and environmentally sustainable in today's livestock market. In addition, more widespread use of this technology will create jobs related to the design, operation, and manufacture of energy recovery systems. The development of renewable energy opportunities will help us diminish our foreign energy dependence while promoting ``green energy'' production. This tax/farmbill proposal is real ``win-win'' situation for America and for our livestock producers. Using swine and bovine waste nutrient is a perfect example of how the agriculture and energy industries can come together to develop an environmentally friendly renewable resource. My legislation will foster increased investment and development in waste to energy technology thereby improving farmer profitability, environmental quality, and energy productivity and reliability. Why should we promote swine and bovine waste nutrient as an energy source? Consider the recent electricity shortage in California, the sky-high prices at the pump throughout last year and the soaring cost of home heating fuel and natural gas this winter. We have an obligation to consumers across the country to accelerate the nation's production of homegrown, clean-burning, renewable sources of energy. The POWER Act is good for agriculture, good for the environment, good for energy consumers, and promotes a good, make that great, renewable resource that will reduce our energy dependence on foreign fuels. It is my hope that all of my colleagues join with me to advance this important piece of legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to express my deep concern about the apparent lack of emphasis by the Department of Defense on the counterdrug mission. This has been a year of continual discussion of increased DOD funding for various military missions. However, all the indications I am hearing point to a decreased DOD interest in this mission, as well as decreased funding levels. I believe this would be a poor policy decision, and a poor indication of the Nation's priorities. In May 2001 testimony, before the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, on which I served as Chairman, the heads of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Customs Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard all testified that DOD reductions would be detrimental to their agencies' counterdrug efforts. The Office of National Drug Control Policy summarized that, ``DOD's command and control system provides the communications connectivity and information system backbone * * * while the military services detection and monitoring assets provide a much need intelligence cueing capability.'' The Commandant of the Coast Guard testified at length about DOD counterdrug support, stating ``[w]e would go downhill very quickly'' without DOD contributions. The Commandant also stated that 43 percent of Coast Guard seizures last year were from U.S. Navy vessels, using onboard Coast Guard law enforcement detachments. The Coast Guard concluded that ``[s]hould there be any radical reduction of the assets provided through the Department of Defense * * * it would peril the potential for all the other agencies to make their contributions as productive * * * mainly because of the synergy that is generated by the enormous capability that the 800-pound gorilla brings to the table * * * They are very, very good at what they do. They are the best in the world * * * and when they share those capabilities * * * in terms of intelligence fusion and command and control, we do much better than we would ever otherwise have a chance to do.'' I understand that an internal review of DOD's drug role contemplated severe reductions as a working assumption. After years of decline in DOD's role in this area, I believe this sends the wrong signal and flies in the face of DOD's statutory authority. I have consistently supported an integrated national counterdrug strategy. If we reduce the DOD role, we risk lessening the effectiveness of other agencies as well. We need to make these decisions carefully, and with full Congressional involvement. I urge the Department of Defense to keep in mind DOD's important role in, and necessary contribution to, a serious national drug control strategy.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Bond-Carranhan-Grassley amendment to the energy and water appropriations bill. This amendment will allow the Secretary of the Army to propose alternatives to the decision mandated by the last administration which will unquestionably increase flood risk and limit barge travel on the lower Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. If we do not correct the ill-informed position that was shoved down our throats last year by the previous administration, landowners in Iowa along the Missouri River will face the threat of increased flooding. Thanks to a few of my colleagues that have obviously never been over to Freemont, Mills, Pottawattamie, Harrison, or Monona counties in Iowa, just to name a few, we have let an issue that was decided for political gain put lives and livelihoods at risk. This is not a new issue. Provisions to limit significant changes in flow had been placed in five previous appropriations bills by my distinguished colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond. Each of these bills had been signed into law by the last administration, except for the legislation last year. Last year a few members let special interest groups drive the agenda and place my constituents in harm's way. It was not acceptable then and it is not acceptable now. Senator Bond's amendment will allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to propose alternatives to achieve species recovery other than those specifically prescribed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plan to increase releases of water from Missouri River dams in the spring. Majority Leader Daschle championed the Fish and Wildlife Service's position last year which will eventually result in significant flooding downstream given the heavy rains that are usually experienced in my, and other downstream states during that time. Last year our opposition described their position as a ``slight revision'' to increase spring flows, known as ``spring rise'' once every three years. They emphasized, ``not every year, but once every three''. When they emphasized that point I guess I'm wondering whether that somehow makes it better or excusable to risk the lives and the livelihood of Iowans and other Americans living on the Missouri once out of every three years instead of every year. This issue is exactly what is wrong with our representative government. How many times have we heard about special interests having too much influence and the decisions that are being made not representing the majority. Well here is my casebook example. How many Americans would view increasing the flow of the river to scour sandbars more important than protecting life and livelihood. There might be a few, and I realize as hard as this is to believe, there were 45 in the Senate last year. But if we could let the American people vote, I bet they would feel protecting Americans is more important than scouring sandbars. The opposition's approach is a terribly risky scheme. Keep in mind that it takes 8 days for water to travel from Gavins Point to the mouth of the Missouri. Unanticipated downstream storms can make a ``controlled release'' a deadly flood inflicting a widespread destruction. There are many small communities along the Missouri River in Iowa. Why should they face increased risk for flooding and its devastation? They should not. Equally unacceptable is the low-flow summer release schedule. A so- called split navigation season would be catastrophic to the transportation of Iowa grain. In effect, the Missouri River will be shut-down to barge traffic during a good portion of the summer. It will also have a disastrous effect on the transportation of steel to Iowa steel mills, construction materials and farm inputs such as fertilizer along the Missouri. Opponents of common sense argue that a spring flood is necessary for species protection under the Endangered Species Act, and that grain and other goods can be transported to market by railroad. I do not accept that argument. I believe that there is significant difference of opinion whether or not a spring flood will benefit pallid sturgeon, the interior least tern, or the piping plover. In fact, the Corps has demonstrated that it can successfully create nesting habitat for the birds through mechanical means so there would be little need to scour the sandbars. Further, it is in dispute among biologists whether or not a flood can create the necessary habitat for sturgeon. This is why it is important to allow the Secretary to propose alternatives to achieve the same goals without the same deadly, ruinous side effects. One thing I do know for sure is that loss of barge traffic would deliver the western part of America's grain belt into the monopolistic hands of the railroads. Without question, grain transportation prices would drastically increase with disastrous results to on farm income. Every farmer in Iowa knows that the balance in grain transportation is competition between barges and railroads. This competition keeps both means of transportation honest. This competition keeps transportation prices down and helps to give the Iowa farmer a better financial return on the sale of his grain. This competition helps to make the grain transportation system in America the most efficient and cost effective in the world. It is crucial in keeping American grain competitively priced in the world market. The Corps itself has estimated that barge competition reduces rail rates along the Missouri by $75-$200 million annually. If a drought hits during the split navigation season, there will be even less water flowing along the Missouri unless we make this necessary change. Low flow will also significantly inhibit navigation along the Mississippi River. We cannot let this happen. Less water flowing in the late summer will also affect hydroelectric rates. Decreased flow means less power generation and higher electric rates for Iowans who depend upon this power source. This is not the time to be increasing the price of energy. In my opinion, the last administration already accomplished increasing energy costs to the breaking point for consumers, now it is time to start bringing those rates down. The corngrowers summed it up best last year when they stated, ``an intentional spring rise is an unwarranted, unscientific assault on farmers and citizens throughout the Missouri River Basin. ``Unfortunately, the past administration felt sandbars were more important than citizens. Let's fix this. I urge my colleagues to support the Bond-Carnahan-Grassley amendment. Vote for common sense.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support the cloture motion to substitute the language of S. 420 to H.R. 333, the House bankruptcy bill. As we all know, the substitute amendment to the House bill is the text of the bill that passed the Senate on March 15 by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 83-15. This bill went through hearings and markups in Judiciary, went through an extensive amendment process on the floor, so no one can dispute that this is a bipartisan bill that has gone through a bipartisan process in the Senate. The bill has gone through the regular order and we should proceed to conference under the regular order. There are a lot of reports out there that have distorted the truth about this bill. Many groups have said this bill is very controversial. That is not the case. I first started working on bankruptcy reform back in the 1990s, when Senator Heflin, now retired, and I set up a Bankruptcy Review Commission to study the bankruptcy system. This commission was not made up of any Members of the Congress. It was made up of experts in the area of bankruptcy to study the issue so that what we did in this Chamber, with their recommendations, would be done right. The debate that set up the Bankruptcy Review Commission was prompted by small business and other small proprietors that had problems with individuals who were reneging on their debts but then turned out, it seemed, to have the ability to pay their bills. The impact on these small businesses, obviously, was significant: Prices had to be raised for items; maybe some businesses went out of business. When that happens, employees are laid off. There is no sense having this economic condition, not because we want to deny people a fresh start, because it has been a policy of our bankruptcy laws to let people have a fresh start when they are in financial straits through no fault of their own--natural disaster, high medical bills, et cetera--but when people have the ability to repay, then they should not get off scot-free and cause employees of businesses that go out of business to lose jobs. We want to be fair to everybody. You can't be fair to businesses and employees that lose their businesses and jobs when somebody who has the ability to pay bills gets off without paying those bills. I was interested in what was going on in the bankruptcy system in the early 1990s when we set up this commission because of my concern about fundamental fairness. Why should people get out of repaying their debts if they can pay them? The issue is not new. In fact, the issue of bankruptcy and personal responsibility has been debated since the 1930s, and Congress has made numerous attempts to decrease the moral stigma associated with bankruptcy. As in previous versions of the bankruptcy bill, the language in the substitute amendment is part of an effort to ensure that bankruptcy is reserved for those who truly need it, and that persons with the means to repay their debts should assume their responsibilities. Some say this bill is unfair and unbalanced because it makes it harder for normal people to avail themselves of bankruptcy. This is just not true either. First, the bankruptcy bill applies to everyone, rich and poor, and the premise behind the bill--that you should pay your debts if you can--does not discriminate against poor people. In fact, there is a safe harbor provision for lower income people. The bill specifically exempts people who earn less than the median income for their State. And for those consumers to which the bill does apply, the means test that is set forth in the bill is flexible, as it should be. It takes into account the reasonable expenses of a debtor as applicable under standards not set by me but issued by the IRS for the area in which the debtor resides. The means test permits every person to deduct 100 percent of medical expenses. The means test permits every person to deduct expenses for the support and care of elderly parents, grandparents, and disabled children. In addition, the means test would permit battered women to deduct domestic violence expenses and protects their privacy. Furthermore, the means test allows every consumer to show ``special circumstances'' to avoid a repayment plan, just in case there is something within this formula that just doesn't fit every particular family in America. Let me again remind people about the enhanced consumer protections and credit card disclosures that are contained in the bill. The bankruptcy bill requires credit card companies to provide key information about how much a customer owes on his credit card, as well as how long it is going to take to pay off the balance by making just a minimum payment. We do that by requiring that the credit card companies set up a toll-free number for consumers to get information on their specific credit card balances. The bill prohibits deceptive advertising of low introductory rates. The bill provides for penalties on creditors who refuse to renegotiate reasonable payment schedules outside of bankruptcy. The bill strengthens enforcement against abusive creditors and increases penalties for predatory debt collection practices. The bill also includes credit counseling programs to help avoid and break the cycle of indebtedness. Let me remind colleagues about the provisions contained in this bill that will help women and children because there has been a dramatic change in the direction of this legislation when it was introduced three Congresses ago until it now has reached the point where it is today. The bill before us makes family support obligations the first priority in bankruptcy. The bill makes staying current on child support a condition of discharge. The bill gives parents and State child support enforcement collection agencies notice when a debtor who owes child support or alimony files for bankruptcy. It also requires bankruptcy trustees to notify child support creditors of their right to use State support child support enforcement agencies to collect outstanding amounts due. The bill also permits battered women to deduct domestic violence expenses and protects their privacy in bankruptcy. I also remind colleagues that we adopted a number of amendments in the Judiciary Committee and in this Chamber that make this a bipartisan bill. It started out as a bipartisan bill anyway, through the help of Senator Torricelli of New Jersey. If I am correct, I believe we adopted something on the order of 8 amendments in the Judiciary Committee and 30 amendments on the floor of the Senate. For example, the Senate adopted an amendment that, for the first time, would protect consumer privacy when businesses go into bankruptcy. Specifically, the Senate agreed that personally identifiable information given by a consumer to a business debtor in bankruptcy should have privacy protections. The Senate also created a consumer privacy ombudsman in the bankruptcy court. The Senate agreed to amendments that expand farmer eligibility in bankruptcy and facilitate postbankruptcy proceedings for farmers. The list goes on. While I did not agree with all of the amendments adopted, the Senate went through a lengthy and fair process. That is why it got an 83-15 vote. The whole process doesn't need to be repeated now. Some of those 15 who voted against it won't give up, and that is their right under the Senate rules. But, eventually, an overwhelming majority in the Senate wins out. Maybe all the time a majority in the Senate doesn't win out, but eventually an overwhelming majority in the Senate wins out. And if it doesn't, it should. This is one of those times. So we need to go to conference now and iron out the differences with the House. I am asking my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. We need to send a message that people cannot use bankruptcy as a financial tool or an easy way out of paying their debt. The bill promotes responsible borrowing and provides financial education to financially troubled consumers. It also provides some of the more proconsumer provisions relative to credit card companies in years. We have not dealt with these issues in years. This bill deals with it and it should. We all recognize that the proliferation of advertising for credit cards and the junk mail we get is part of the cause that we have people in bankruptcy. It also creates new protections for patients when hospitals and nursing homes declare bankruptcy. The bill makes permanent chapter 12 bankruptcy for family farmers and lessens the capital gains tax burden on financially strapped farmers who declare bankruptcy. This is a bill that the Senate passed with this overwhelming margin, which my colleagues probably get tired of my mentioning so many times, but it was 83-15. So I think it is just common sense. Maybe common sense doesn't rule around this institution enough, but it is common sense that we move on to the next step. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the cloture and in support of the Leahy-Hatch-Grassley substitute amendment. I yield the floor, and since there are no other Members present, I suggest the absence of a quorum and that it be charged to Senator Wellstone. I have been advised by staff that that is the proper thing to do.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I need from the time allotted to Senator Hatch.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I would expect to be done by 2:30.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to visit with my colleagues and our constituents about the issues of the tax relief that was recently passed by the Congress of the United States and signed by the President on June 7 and will be the reason that tax rebate checks will go out, distributing $65 billion of overtaxation to the American people--back to the American people so they can spend it, so it will do more economic good than if it is politically distributed here in Washington, DC. That bill not only has the $65 billion of tax refunds that will start going out next week and be out by September 30, but it already has reductions for other rates. The tax rebates come from the new 10- percent rate that is going into effect retroactive to January 1. It is my understanding there will be about 90 million Americans who will be getting rebates of up to $300 if they are single, $500 if they are a single parent, and also then up to $600 if they are married. Also, remember that this is not a one-shot rate reduction, or tax rebate; that these rebates, even though they will never be received in a check again, will continue on into the future as permanent reductions in taxation for people in the 10-percent bracket. And also remember that everybody who pays taxes would pay some of that 10-percent bracket so that it does affect all taxpayers. But checks are going out for those up to the amount of $12,000 of taxable income. I think this tax bill is going to make real changes in the lives of folks across our country. The changes I am going to discuss today result in the greatest tax relief provided in a generation--tax relief, I might add, powerfully brought about in a bipartisan consensus. Some might ask, Why talk about something we have already done? The answer is that the legislation is quite comprehensive and to do it justice we really need to take a thorough and methodical look at it-- not look at it just from the standpoint of the rebate checks that are going out, which are getting all the attention, but all the other aspects of the bill as well. It is true there have been a lot of press reports on this legislation. Again, most of those have been related to the rebate checks going out starting next week. None of these reports, however, I believe, in the press has really tied the specific benefits of the bill back to its bipartisan purpose. Also, the press reports have tended to analyze the bill in terms of its impact on certain types of taxpayers. At the same time, many press reports have focused exclusively on the budget angle of the tax legislation; in other words, people nervous, tearing out their hair because there is going to be less money coming into the Federal Treasury as a result of our letting the people keep their tax overpayment. These reports that tend to be very pessimistic often echo the sentiments of the harshest congressional critics of the legislation. These reports, like the congressional critics of this bill--and probably for the most part those who voted against it--tend to ignore the benefits of the bill. Tax relief legislation is just not more money in the taxpayers' pockets in some selfish way that you let the taxpayers keep more of their money. There is great economic good that comes from the distribution of goods and services in this economy based upon an individual making that decision as opposed to a political leader in Washington, DC, making that decision through the Federal budget. Now, of course, all of this criticism is fair play in the arena of politics. However, in recent weeks it seems to me these arguments have not been answered with the same vigor by the strong bipartisan majority of us who supported the legislation. So today I take the floor to set the record straight. Tax relief is absolutely necessary. Tax relief legislation is an important vehicle in response to our short-term and long-term economic situations. And that is basically a flat economy--1 to 1.5-percent growth instead of the 2-percent growth we projected a year ago, 1 to 1.5-percent economic growth under the last two quarters of the Clinton administration, and carrying through to the first two quarters of President Bush's administration. That is a situation where we have these checks going out, a short- term stimulus, which, if we had not done it, would have had 100 Senators sitting around this body scratching their heads and deploring the fact that we had a flat economy. So what can we do about it? Congress has passed tax reduction in the past to stimulate the economy but often taking effect after the economy turned around. It tended not to be as beneficial as it would have been if it had been done at the right time. I do not want to take credit for having been a leader in the tax rebates, knowing that they were going to be needed now as a stimulus. I confess not to have thought that way last March and April when we started working on tax relief. But we ended up with tax rebates--$65 billion--and most economists are saying they could not have come at a more opportune time for an economy that is flat and in need of some stimulus. There are three reasons for this bipartisan tax relief package. One is that it is necessary, when the Federal Government overtaxes people, to reduce taxes so that there is not overtaxation. No. 2, it is necessary to respond to the current and long-term economic problems. I talked about the short-term stimulus, but there are long-term economic benefits from this bill that are going to enhance the economy. Third, there is sufficient surplus outside Social Security and Medicare that is still available to accomplish a tax cut that addresses certain inequities in the Tax Code, such as the marriage penalty. I will start with reason No. 1, that the tax cut corrected overtaxation. Before the tax cut, the Federal Government was collecting too much tax. The Federal Government was on a path to accumulate over $3.1 trillion in excess tax collections over the next 10 years. Federal tax receipts were at their highest level in our Nation's history. The bulk of these excess collections came from the individual income- tax payer. Individual income tax collections were near an all-time high, even higher than some levels imposed by World War II. The chart I have in the Chamber demonstrates this better than I can, how, since 1960, we have seen very high income taxation. In this particular case, we are seeing taxes, as a whole, collected by the Federal Government, not just the income taxes but everything at the highest level by the year 2000 at 20.6 percent of gross national product. This chart shows total tax receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product over 40 years. Tax receipts have naturally fluctuated frequently since 1960, but most shockingly they spike up since the tax bill of 1993. The January 2001 Congressional Budget Office report to Congress shows that in 1992, total tax receipts were around 17 percent of gross domestic product. As I said, by the year 2000, they were at 20.6 percent. The significance of this percentage can only be appreciated in the historical comparisons to which I have already referred. But I want to be more specific. In 1944, at the height of World War II, taxes, as a percentage of gross domestic product, were 20.9 percent--only .5 percent higher than they are today. By 1945, those taxes had dropped to 20.4 percent of GDP, which is actually lower than the collection level today. It is unbelievable that in a time of unprecedented peace and prosperity, which defines the last decade, the Federal Government would rake in taxes at a wartime level. The sorriest part of this whole story is that this huge increase in taxes has been borne almost exclusively by the American people who pay the individual Federal income tax. I have another chart which shows tax collection levels for payroll taxes, corporate taxes, and all other taxes over the past decade. It shows they have been relatively stable. Corporate taxes, during the past 10 years, have increased from 1.6 percent of GDP to 2.1 percent of GDP. Estate taxes have remained relatively stable over that period of time. However, collection of individual income taxes by the Federal Government has soared. There was a 50-percent increase during that period of time: 7.7 percent of gross domestic product in 1992 to 10.2 percent of gross domestic product as of the year 2000. Individual income taxes now take up the largest share of GDP in the history of the individual income tax. And that dates back to 1916, except for the Civil War when there was one that the courts declared unconstitutional. Even during World War II collections from individuals were 9.4 percent. So you see it was a full percentage point below what they are today in peacetime. As you can see, the source of current and future surpluses is from a huge runup in individual income tax collections, and not in runups in any other form of taxes and levies that the Federal Government makes on the taxpayers of this country or the businesses of this country. Part of this is because the 1993 Clinton tax increase overshot its mark. These excess collections are attributable to that enactment, in August 1993, of the largest tax increase in the history of the world. Since 1992, total personal income has grown an average of 5.6 percent. Federal income tax collections, however, have grown an average of 9.1 percent a year, outstripping the rate of personal income growth by 64 percent. The Joint Committee on Taxation, at the request of the Joint Economic Committee of the Congress, estimated that just repealing the revenue- raising provisions of President Clinton's 1993 biggest-in-the-world tax hike would yield tax relief of more than $1 trillion over 10 years. We ought to take a closer look at that 1993 world's biggest tax increase. The 39.6-percent top bracket reflected a 10-percent surcharge on the basic 36-percent rate. The itemized deductions you can subtract from your taxable income, known as the Pease Rule, and the phaseout of personal exemptions, which we refer to as PEP, the personal exemption phaseout, were temporary bipartisan deficit reduction provisions that were made permanent under the 1993 tax hike. So remember, you had a top marginal tax rate of 36. That was meant to be permanent. But you had a temporary 10 percent put on top of that, bringing that to 36.9 percent. Yet for higher brackets they wanted to camouflage it. We had a phaseout of exemptions so that higher income people did not get the full advantage of the personal exemption, as an example, which ought to tell you that in a time of budget surpluses, which we are in right now, anybody who was intellectually honest about putting a 10-percent surtax on the basic 36-percent rate just to get rid of the annual budget deficit ought to take that 10-percent rate off. But, no, it was never done by those who proposed it and those who did it. We did it through the gradual reduction of the rates that were in the bill signed by the President June 7. The chairman of the Finance Committee at the time of the 1993 Clinton tax increase actually called this what I have already referred to as-- ``a world record tax hike.'' Obviously, with income tax collections as high as they have ever been in the history of the country, we know that to be a fact. The rationale for the tax increases was deficit reduction. It is reasonable to think that if deficit reduction was a reason for raising taxes to record levels, then in the era of surpluses we are in now, those tax overcharges, those tax overpayments, should be left with the taxpayers of America, not run through the Federal budget anymore, for two reasons: No. 1, because they are not needed, once you balance the budget; and, No. 2, if I distribute that income of the hard-working men and women in America, it doesn't turn over in the economy as much as if they keep it and spend it or invest it. That is what creates jobs; they create wealth. We in the Federal Government don't create wealth; we only expend the wealth created by others. This year, on a bipartisan basis, Congress did just that through the tax bill signed by President Bush on June 7. We are going to let you keep your money because we believe it does more economic good, it creates more wealth if you have it than if we have it. Congress then agreed to return a portion of the record level of taxes back to the taxpayers and, in a sense, Congress, on party-line vote in 1993--and it was a party-line vote--raised taxes too much. And this year, on a bipartisan basis--not a party-line vote but on a bipartisan basis--we corrected that overtaxation and that temporary taxation that was put in place in 1993. Democrats and Republicans, led by President Bush, started with the fact that the 1993 tax hike took too much from the American taxpayers and the American economy. President Bush offered to reduce individual tax rates across all rate brackets and to reduce the number of brackets. Congress changed aspects of the President's plan and, from my point of view, improved the President's plan as it made its way through Congress. The bill the President signed did contain relief for taxpayers in all tax brackets. This benefits all taxpayers across America. There is much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over the fiscal impact of that tax relief package. We hear it daily from the leadership on the other side and from many in the media. What you don't hear about is how close everyone in the Senate was on the size of the tax cut. In other words, for those who voted against the tax cut, there was just a little bit of difference between what Republicans and a bipartisan group of Members of this body thought ought to be cut at a higher level versus what everybody else, on mostly a partisan basis, thought we ought to cut taxes--just a little bit of difference. For the record, everyone on the other side of the aisle who opposed the bipartisan tax relief package had already voted for over $1.25 trillion of tax relief. Some of those people who voted that way are the very same ones who are saying we cut taxes too much. I hope you remember that on the debate on the tax bill, everyone on the other side, including every Member of the Democratic leadership, including the present chairman of the Budget Committee, the Senator from North Dakota, voted for $1.25 trillion in tax relief. Yet they are now saying we shouldn't have this tax cut. For instance, we had a vote on what was called the Carnahan-Daschle Democratic substitute. That amendment, if it had passed, would have represented tax cuts of that $1.25 trillion I cited. I raise this point for two reasons: One, to make the record clear on the votes on the tax cut bill; and two, to make an even more fundamental point. That fundamental point is, despite all the rhetoric, there was widespread support for significant across-the-board relief even among the most critical of the final tax package. Let me repeat reason No. 1 for this tax cut before I go on to reason No. 2. The American people are overtaxed. The American people have paid a tax surplus into the Federal Treasury. The goal is to let the taxpayers distribute those goods and services as opposed to having 100 Senators distribute that money. Now reason No. 2: The tax cut is needed to reverse slow growth in the economy, not only slow growth long term but I have already referred to the slow growth that has happened right now over the last four quarters, 1- to 1.5-percent growth instead of 2.5-percent as we had projected. I provided you with the first reason, to correct overtaxation. Now for the second one. It is our responsibility to help the folks back home who are facing a slower economy to create jobs, to expand the economy. There has been a slowdown since the latter half of the year 2000. I will expand on the point that the economic slowdown did start in the latter part of 2000. We have two charts. The first chart shows that economic growth has slowed considerably since the middle of last year. In the last two quarters of the Clinton administration, it started to slow. Compared to the average 4-percent growth rate since 1998, the economy grew only a little over 1 percent. Several factors have contributed to the economic slowdown. For the two previous years, we had a tighter monetary policy by the Federal Reserve. We had Chairman Greenspan throw out of the window his very comprehensive program of liquidity from 1988 until 1995, and then he started worrying about inflation. Worrying about inflation so much, he tightened up money so that we didn't have enough liquidity. When he gets back on the kick of worrying about liquidity, not worrying about inflation, the monetary policy will turn it around. But a tighter monetary policy has brought about this slowdown. We have also had the rising energy rates, a decline in the stock market, and we have had rising tax burdens. The economic slowdown has real impact on working Americans, as evidenced by this second chart we have here, as you have seen the unemployment rate go up. It shows that the unemployment rate had fallen steadily, but since the slowdown began last year, the unemployment rate has risen. It is now at 4\1/2\ percent, the same level it was in October 1998. Although there is still considerable uncertainty about the economy, a number of factors seem to point in the right direction, and one is there is some reversal of the Federal Reserve on its monetary policy. We have had energy prices stabilize. For instance, a week ago last weekend, I bought gas in Cedar Falls, IA, at $1.19 a gallon. Given the continued pessimism on Wall Street, however, the economy remains vulnerable to potential shocks. So we should continue to monitor signs of potential trouble ahead and be prepared to take additional steps should they become necessary. Republicans and Democrats have a responsibility to address this problem. There is some speculation by some on my side of the aisle that those on the other side are hoping the recession comes about for political reasons. I disagree with that speculation. I believe everyone here wants to get the economy on a steady path. Everyone knows that the worst thing you can do in an economic downturn is to raise taxes. On the other hand, a tax cut is a stimulus to economic activity. So if your goal were to further slow down the economy, one sure way to do it would be to raise taxes. On the other hand, if you see a slowdown coming, a tax cut would be a wise response to get the economy growing again. In other words, if we had not cut taxes, not had these rebate checks going out, we would be nervously trying to cut taxes to stimulate the economy. A tax cut stimulates economic growth in two ways. First is to the extent the tax cut currently provides more money for consumers to spend, it creates more demands for goods and services. Secondly, and most importantly, the tax cut stimulates the economy through changes in expectations for workers, investors, and businesses. In other words, a lower tax bite means that workers, investors, and businesses can expect to retain more of the income generated by their activities. That expectation will change what workers and investors and businesses do right now. That does more economic good than if we have a political decision to distribute the goods and services. Chairman Alan Greenspan and others have alluded to a new form of ``bracket creep'' brought about by high tax rates. In a sense, through this new form of bracket creep, the Federal Government was getting a windfall from workers, investors, and businesses. With the lower marginal tax rates, some of the damaging bracket creep has been eliminated over the long term. That change should free up more income to flow through the marketplace and stimulate the economy. So it was pretty clear some action needed to be taken to stimulate the economy. Action was taken and now, hopefully, for the folks back home, the economy will start to grow significantly. Now if I can go to the third and last reason why the tax bill needed to be passed--the issue of fairness. We heard during the debate, and even recently, a hue and cry from some on the other side of the aisle that not all taxpayers should receive a rate reduction. They said the bipartisan tax relief bill that was signed by the President disproportionately benefits upper income taxpayers and does not provide enough relief at the lower income scale. Well, we have news for that group of people. None of those allegations is true, and the charts that I have will show that. But we first need to understand the current distribution of tax burdens in America. We already have a highly progressive income tax system. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the top 20 percent of income taxpayers pay over 75 percent of all the income taxes coming into the Federal Government. By contrast, households in the bottom three-fifths of the income distribution pay 7 percent of all individual taxes. Sometimes I get the feeling around here that when it comes to progressivity, the only way it is going to satisfy anybody here is if the richest man in America is supporting the Federal Government totally. But for those who are worried about this tax bill not being progressive enough, it not only preserves an already progressive system; it actually makes it more progressive. Those who don't like progressive income tax systems don't like to hear me say that. But for those who say our tax bill has made it less progressive, I hope it causes them to keep their mouths shut. So to all who are critical of the bipartisan tax relief package as a tax cut for the rich, I invite them to pay special attention to data prepared by a neutral source, the Joint Committee on Taxation. These professionals work for both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, and for both the House and the Senate. As the Joint Committee on Taxation says, the marginal tax rate reductions in our bill, as signed by the President, combined with the increase in the child credit, and its added refundability, the marriage penalty, the education provisions, and the individual retirement accounts and pension provisions--all these aspects of this bill provide the greatest reduction in tax burden for the lower income taxpayer. I ask unanimous consent that the tables prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will go to a couple of the charts I referred to prepared by Joint Tax. Look at the levels of reduction in tax burden shown on this chart. You can see that the lowest income brackets receive the highest reduction. Now, for the year 2006--and I say for the year 2006 because that is when the individual tax provisions or rates are implemented--taxpayers with over $100,000 of income receive a tax cut of between 5 and 6 percent. Taxpayers earning between $10,000 and $50,000 get a tax cut of between 6.5 percent and 13.6 percent, with those at the lower income levels getting the biggest percentage of reduction. Even those with incomes below $10,000, who, by and large, don't pay income and payroll taxes, receive a tax cut under the bipartisan tax relief package. Under the tax relief, 6 million Americans will be taken off the income tax rolls. Those are lower bracket people. Just tell 6 million people who are never going to be paying income tax in the future that they aren't getting a benefit from this greater than higher income people who are going to be paying income taxes the rest of their lives. A four-person family earning $35,000 a year will no longer have any income tax burden. As the Joint Tax data also shows, a large reduction of the tax burden is targeted toward taxpayers between the $30,000 and $75,000 income brackets. These taxpayers will enjoy significant effective tax relief. I also said that the bipartisan tax relief actually makes our tax system more progressive. The Joint Tax Committee again provides the proof. As the Joint Tax tables demonstrate, under the bipartisan tax relief package, the overall burden goes down for taxpayers earning below $100,000. For taxpayers making $100,000 or more, however, their share of the Federal tax burden will actually increase under the bipartisan tax relief legislation. For example, for taxpayers earning between $100,000 and $200,000 a year, their share of the burden will increase by three-tenths of a percent. This is not the case for taxpayers earning between $10,000 and $30,000. Their share of the overall burden will decrease by three-tenths of a percentage point. So the bipartisan tax relief legislation not only retains the progressivity of the tax system, but that progressivity is enhanced. Now, it is clear that distribution tables aren't the only way to define tax fairness. There were other categories of tax relief that carried bipartisan priority in terms of fairness. First, on a bipartisan basis, there is concern about the added burden for couples who decide to marry. This important social objective was impaired by the marriage penalty. The bipartisan tax relief legislation provided marriage tax relief. Second, on a bipartisan basis, there was concern about the Tax Code's failure to recognize the cost of raising children. The bipartisan tax relief legislation provides tax relief for millions of families with children, including those who pay no income tax at all. In addition, the dependent care tax credit was enhanced for families with children in day care. Third, on a bipartisan basis, there was concern about helping families with the rising cost of education. As a response, the bipartisan tax relief legislation includes a package of educational tax relief measures. Fourth, on a bipartisan basis, there was concern about declining savings rates and the need for more secure retirement plan benefits for more workers to help baby boomers who are saving less. As a response, the bipartisan tax relief legislation included significant enhancements to individual retirement accounts and retirement plans. This package was then perhaps the greatest improvement in our individual IRAs and retirement plans in a generation. Finally, there was a bipartisan concern about the confiscatory impact of the death tax, especially for family farmers and small businesses. As a response, the bipartisan tax relief legislation includes death tax relief, including repeal. Today I have talked about the three most important reasons from my perspective why we were able to pass the largest bipartisan tax relief measure in a generation. The first reason is to correct the policy of overtaxation that stemmed from the heavy tax hike of 1993. The second is to respond with an economic stimulus against the current economic slowdown. The third is there are sufficient budgetary resources to address tax fairness problems. It is important to realize that the major tax legislation just enacted rests on a very sound foundation. It should not be dismissed, it should not be obfuscated, and it should not otherwise be distorted by budgetary demagoguery. Let us not forget that revenue is not an abstract notion. Revenue reflects the sum total payments to Washington by hard-working men and women. It is not abstract when paid and should not be treated as an entitlement by those of us fortunate enough to be sent here to make policy decisions to represent the folks back home. We have a very good tax bill. Our challenge is to make sure that those in Congress who want to spend more money and do not like giving the people back their money--we are intent upon keeping this reduction of revenue coming into the Federal Treasury, not because we are concerned about the taxpayers, but because if those taxpayers spend that money, it is going to do more economic good and turn over the economy, create more jobs and more wealth than if I spend it as a Member of the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, we are about to vote on the cloture motion to proceed to the bankruptcy bill. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for cloture. I would like to say at the outset that I am pleased Senator Daschle has decided to move forward with the bankruptcy bill. It's only fair that we go through the regular order on bankruptcy, which is to take up the House-passed version, substitute that with the Senate-passed bill, and then proceed to conference to resolve differences between the two bills. The Senate bill, S. 420, went through proper procedure--in the 107th Congress, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing and markup of the bill, and then there was extended debate and amendments on the floor. In March, S. 420 passed out of the Senate by a vote of 83 to 15. But, to tell you the truth, a bankruptcy bill should have been signed into law last year. We've been working on bankruptcy legislation for three Congresses now. The bill has passed both houses several times. Last year, the bill was unfortunately pocket-vetoed by President Clinton at the very last minute. The main reason we don't have a bill enacted into law is because of the determined efforts of certain Senators to delay and obstruct the process, even though a large bipartisan majority of the Congress supports bankruptcy reform. Certain Senators have made a point of impeding progress on this important reform measure every step of the way. They've done this because left- wing interest groups think that bankruptcy should be easy. But the majority of us here in Congress don't think that should be the case. The bill reforms the bankruptcy system to require repayment of debts by individuals who have the ability to pay their bills, by reinstituting personal responsibility in a bankruptcy system that is now all too often being used as a financial tool for deadbeats. It is clear that the bill reinjects an individual's personal responsibility in regard to his or her financial situation, while at the same time protecting the right of debtors to a financial fresh start when they are in a situation where they cannot repay their debts or have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own. I repeat, the bill does not eliminate bankruptcy as a recourse for people who come on hard times. In fact, the bill clearly indicates that it there is a change in the circumstances of a debtor, that will be taken into account. And that includes the loss of a job or unexpected medical expenses. Furthermore, the bill strengthens protections for child support and alimony payments by making family support obligations a first priority in bankruptcy, up from number seven. What could help women and children more than moving family support obligations to the first priority in bankruptcy? We can't move them higher than number one, we've put women and children at the top. The bill makes staying current on child support a condition of discharge--debt discharge in bankruptcy is made conditional upon full payment of past due child support and alimony. So the bill makes payment of child support arrears a condition of plan confirmation. In addition, the bill gives parents and state child support enforcement collection agencies notice when a debtor who owes child support or alimony files for bankruptcy. The bill requires bankruptcy trustees to notify child support creditors of their right to use state child support enforcement agencies to collect outstanding amounts due. I think that these provisions will help ensure that women and children are up front when there is a bankruptcy. The bill does a lot more to help reform the bankruptcy system. For example, the bill makes permanent chapter 12 bankruptcy for family farmers and lessens the capital gains tax burden on financially strapped farmers who declare bankruptcy. As you know, we just extended chapter 12 for a few more months. It's high time that Congress get down to business and make chapter 12 permanent. I know that this is an important provision for many Senators out in farm country. In addition, the bill creates new protections for patients when hospitals and nursing homes declare bankruptcy. This was the subject of a hearing that I held in the Aging Committee when I chaired that committee, and so the bankruptcy bill will provide a ``patient's bill of rights'' to the elderly residents of bankrupt nursing homes. Finally, the bill requires that credit card companies provide key information about how much people owe and how long it will take to pay off their credit card debt by only making a minimum payment. To help do that, the bankruptcy bill provides a toll-free number to call where individuals can get information on the length of time it will take to pay off their own credit card balances if they make minimum payments. The bill prohibits deceptive advertising of low introductory rates, and provides for penalties on creditors who refuse to renegotiate reasonable payment schedules outside of bankruptcy. The bill strengthens enforcement and penalties against abusive creditors for predatory debt collection practices. And the bill includes credit counseling programs to help avoid and break the cycle of indebtedness. So, the bankruptcy bill that the Senate passed actually contains some of the most pro-consumer provisions we've seen directed toward the credit industry in years. The reality is that a large majority of the Senate voted for this bill. It's clear to me that the majority of Senators want a bankruptcy bill to pass. We've worked on bankruptcy legislation for three Congresses now, and it is time for us to get down to the business of getting this bill over the goal line once and for all. We already had an overwhelming vote on the Senate bill--83 to 15 votes. So I'm urging my colleagues to vote for cloture. Madam President, since I do not see other people ready to speak, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I ask unanimous consent the time for the quorum call be evenly divided.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to discuss with my colleagues the issue of the Federal Bureau of Investigation oversight, and how we can help the Bureau regain the trust and confidence of the American people. First, I find it very pleasant today to commend Attorney General Ashcroft for something he did. He announced today action to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Office of Inspector General of the Justice Department so that that Office of Inspector General would be able to work with the FBI and the DEA on its own initiative, without jumping through a lot of hoops which were some hoops that were put in place in the previous administration, which, in a sense, put the FBI and the DEA out of bounds from things that you would expect an inspector general of a department to be looking into. So, effective immediately, then, the inspector general will have primary jurisdiction over allegations of misconduct against employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Agency. This is an important and encouraging step towards overall FBI reform, one which I hope will help to solve the problems that the FBI has with their management culture. Previous to this, the inspector general could not initiate an investigation within the FBI, or the Drug Enforcement Agency, without the express permission from the Deputy Attorney General. Contrariwise, in most other Departments, the inspector general can do any investigation they want to, unimpeded in any way. It is very important for the inspector general to have that freedom to function. They are not only an agent for the Cabinet Department head, but they are also an agent of the Congress because they can report directly to the Congress. It is essential to have that type of oversight, that type of policing to ferret out wrongdoing. I have been saying for many years that the FBI should not be allowed to police itself, and I am encouraged by this new step taken today towards the establishment of a free and independent oversight entity which now, truly, the Department of Justice inspector general will be. I am also pleased to see as part of this order that the Attorney General has enhanced whistleblower protection for FBI employees who come forward with protected disclosures. As an author of legislation that is on the books now for whistleblower protection, the last time we enhanced the protection for whistleblowers there was just enough sympathy--and unjustified sympathy--within this body for the FBI that somehow the FBI could have a separate set of regulations just for whistleblowers within the FBI. As a result, whistleblowers within the FBI have not had the same amount of protection that whistleblowers in any other agency of the Federal Government might have. So this will also help in that direction. I thank the Attorney General for that. Today, then, following up on this action of the Attorney General, I have forwarded a letter to Attorney General Ashcroft, commending him on these steps, and also request that his office provide me with additional details regarding how the various investigative and audit entities within the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the DEA are to be administered and organized. Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to meet with FBI Director nominee Robert Mueller. I discussed with Robert Mueller several concerns that I have with how the Bureau has been managed over the past several years. I also discussed with Mr. Mueller my views on the type of leadership that I think the FBI needs. We have a once-every-10-year opportunity to find someone who can fix the problems inherent in the management culture at the Bureau because that appointment comes up for a 10-year length of time. I want to make sure, during this once-in-a-10-year opportunity, Mr. Mueller understands my concerns. Part of our discussion concerned the need for strengthening FBI oversight, both on the part of the executive branch, along the lines of what I have been saying about the inspector general, but also from the Congress--oversight, constitutional oversight over the executive branch agencies. Without asking Mr. Mueller to comment on pending legislation, I mentioned to Mr. Mueller I am working on a bill to permanently extend by statute the jurisdiction that was given today by the Attorney General to the Department of Justice inspector general, so that some future Attorney General cannot put impediments in the way of the inspector general investigating things within the FBI. I encourage Mr. Mueller, should he be confirmed, to make it a priority to ensure that he and the FBI will cooperate fully with whatever oversight entity is in place. I also discussed with Mr. Mueller the need for increased whistleblower protection for FBI employees. Over the years the FBI has been notorious for retaliating against those who would expose the types of waste, fraud, and abuse in cases that have now become synonymous with a culture of arrogance within the FBI. These are cases such as Ruby Ridge, Waco, the TWA-800 investigation, the FBI crime lab investigation, Richard Jewell, Wen Ho Lee, Robert Hanssen, and most recently the Oklahoma bombing investigation in the McVeigh case. I will be introducing legislation that will provide statutory protection for FBI whistleblowers to overcome the shortcomings of the legislation that was signed by President Bush in 1989. Those exemptions that were made from the FBI need to be taken out so the whistleblowers in the FBI have the same protection as whistleblowers in any other agency of Government. I hope the new Director will not only support this important reform but will work to ensure these important reforms are communicated clearly throughout the entire Bureau. I believe that in order to regain the trust and confidence of the American people, the FBI must be open and fully responsive to differing points of view within its own ranks. More importantly, employees must be able to present these opinions in an atmosphere that is free of retaliation that happens so often against people whom we call whistleblowers. Basically, within any organization there is a great deal of peer pressure to go along to get along. But that peer pressure also has the capability of covering up wrongdoing and bad administration. That is why the process of people telling the truth and coming out in the open is so important. Without this freedom, the FBI will only continue to suppress and marginalize those who speak out, and things will go on as they have for so long. That is not good. That is what has brought about a culture of arrogance--of believing within the FBI that the FBI can do no wrong. Perhaps the greatest example of this type of retaliation against a whistleblower occurred in an investigation I made involving a whistleblower by the name of Dr. Fred Whitehurst. You may remember that when Dr. Whitehurst came forward with proof of abusive practices at the FBI crime lab, he was shamelessly discredited by senior FBI officials. An inspector general investigation--after going through all of those hoops I talked about--later supported the assertions made by Dr. Whitehurst. In an effort to get back his good name, Dr. Whitehurst won a settlement that ended up costing the American taxpayers $1 million. There is something wrong when a whistleblower comes forward and he is not listened to, and he has to sue, and it costs the taxpayers $1 million to settle. He should have been listened to in the first instance. We want to encourage an environment within all government agencies, but particularly the FBI, that wrongdoing is not covered up; that people who whistleblow aren't treated like a skunk at a picnic on a Sunday afternoon, that they are held up as somebody who ought to be honored rather than somebody who ought to be suppressed. I want to make sure to mention that the comments I make about the FBI today, though, should in no way minimize the great sacrifices made every day by hard-working FBI agents and support personnel. These men and women serve their nation proudly. They deserve an organization that has integrity and credibility. The FBI management system is broken. This does a real disservice to the hard-working agents on the street. When the FBI does what they are set up to do--to seek the truth and let the truth convict--they do their job right. But when there is an effort to cover up something that has gone wrong and people are more concerned about the headlines and the public relations of the organization as opposed to the fundamentals of law enforcement--that is, these cases and a lot of others I have already listed--that is when their agency gets in trouble and loses credit. In regard to these agents who do their work and do it right and because of this management culture that must be changed by the new Director, I have asked the Attorney General to provide me with information regarding the extent to which the new FBI Director will be able to institute the departmentwide reforms and to make staffing changes, including changes at the senior staff and management level. I believe that a new FBI Director will only have a certain period of time--maybe a couple of months--in which he can make real change. In order for the new Director to take advantage of that time, he must be afforded maximum flexibility for staffing and policy setting. I also agree that we have not done enough in Congress. I am not putting the blame just on the Department of Justice and the FBI. We have a constitutional responsibility of oversight. We spend all of our time legislating, giving speeches, passing laws, voting, and offering amendments. That is what most people think being a Congressman is all about. But also, once laws are passed, the checks and balances of our Constitution require that we do our constitutional job of oversight; that is, to see that the laws are faithfully executed and that money spent appropriated by Congress is spent within the intent of Congress and that the law is enforced within the intent of Congress. Congress does not do a good enough job. For too long we have seen mishap after mishap occur, with the end result being more money and more jurisdiction for the FBI. The Director of the FBI comes up to Capitol Hill, everybody sees the Director of FBI, and they just melt. The Director of the FBI says a couple of mea culpas and walks out of here with a nice pat on the back, and probably a bigger appropriation. That is not oversight. That is just business as usual. One way this can be improved is through the creation of a subcommittee within the Committee on the Judiciary that would be directly responsible for FBI oversight. We need to help the FBI change the kind of culture that places image and publicity before basics and fundamentals. We need to help the FBI change the kind of culture that holds press conferences in high-profile cases before the investigation is complete and all the facts are in, and when all the facts are in, then the FBI has egg on its face. Yes, the American people deserve the kind of agency that won't make the kind of mistakes the FBI has made in the Wen Ho Lee and the Atlantic Olympic bombing case, and the Waco case and the Ruby Ridge case. But, more importantly, the American people deserve an agency that is honest and forthright about their errors; in other words, very transparent. As one of our Supreme Court Justices said 80 or 100 years ago, the best disinfectant is sunshine. Let the Sun shine in and there won't be mold. That is transparency. That is the way the American Government ought to operate. I look forward to getting down to the business of helping the FBI and its next Director regain the trust and confidence of the American people. I yield the floor. I thank the Presiding Officer for waiting for me to speak tonight.