Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Right, because I think there was due consideration to the tradeoff between the people who don't have insurance now--42 million people--and the people who do have insurance through self- employed plans, and that there was within the committee a real concern about whether or not those employers might drop their insurance--not that we are concerned about the employer, but we are concerned about the employee if they are not going to have health insurance.

Mr. GRASSLEY. That is absolutely right. I thought the Senator was talking about the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. These would also be within their jurisdiction.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes. I am a member of the Judiciary Committee, and we would look at these things and give them the due consideration they ought to have. I know the Senator from Tennessee has served on the Judiciary Committee and he knows that is a very important part of our work. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for bringing those points to us because he reminds me that not only has it not been considered by the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which I have been talking about, and the Finance Committee, because I am a member and the senior Republican on that committee, but also a third committee should have considered perhaps the most controversial part of this legislation before us, and that has not had the due consideration that important changes in law and liability ought to have in this Chamber. I am just about done. I have spoken now for a long time on my motion to commit to the respective committees. I guess I am being reminded my motion to commit is to the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on the one hand and to the Finance Committee on the other. Maybe my motion should be broadened--although I am not going to do that at this point-- to the point of the Judiciary Committee taking a look-see at the liability provisions as well. A vote for the motion to commit would put this bill on the right track. It lets members of these committees do the job that we were sent here to do. The Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the Finance Committee have a great track record in this Congress. They will continue to do so. Taking this bill through the relevant committees will only improve it and ultimately make it a better law, and one that is not in any way subject to a potential--I predict, not subject to a potential veto threat, as the legislation now is. After all, isn't getting the job done, getting a good Patients' Bill of Rights, what the people really want--a good law that is produced in a proper way, a bill that will guarantee treatment for patients, not a tribute for lawyers? I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to discuss my vote on the Hutchinson-Bond amendment. I commend Senators Hutchinson and Bond for raising the issue of accelerating full deductibility for the self- employed. I support, and have always supported, this important effort and wish to see it realized. I am confident that with the leadership of Senators Hutchinson and Bond it will become reality. However, as the recent experience with the $1.35 trillion tax relief bill has shown, it is critical that tax legislation be first considered by the Finance Committee as part of a tax bill. I have sought and have received agreement from the chairman of the Finance Committee that this measure and similar health tax related matters will be subject to a markup in the Finance Committee in the near future. I look forward to pursuing this issue at that time.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as most of my colleagues know, agriculture is a crucial industry for Iowa. The small, independent family farmer is an important thread which holds together my State's cultural, economic and social fabric. In fact, the family farmer is one of the best things about Iowa's heritage. My colleagues are well aware that I'm committed to preserving and supporting this valuable member of Iowa's communities. Agriculture is a risky business. I know that from personal experience, I've lived and worked on a farm all my life. But these days, farmers feel especially vulnerable. ``Merger-mania'' has been running rampant, with large companies joining forces to create new business giants in every sector of the economy, including agriculture. The agriculture sector has witnessed a number of mega-mergers and alliances affecting grain and livestock. And the independent producer is seeing fewer choices of who to buy from and who to sell to. More and more family farmers and independent producers are feeling the pressure and impact of concentration in agriculture. Good men and women who have farmed for years and years are going out of business. Yet, the independent farmer is one of the most efficient businessman in our Nation's economy. That's why the United States can feed itself and a good portion of the world. I've said before that I am not of the belief that all mergers are in and of themselves wrong or unfair to family farmers. But we need to make sure that open and fair access to the marketplace is preserved for everyone. We need to make sure that large businesses are not acting in a predatory or anti-competitive manner. We need to make sure that family farmers and independent producers can compete on a level playing field. That's how we can keep our economy strong, our agricultural community vibrant and competitive, and our consumers happy. Now we've heard that a Delaware Court has ordered Tyson Foods and IBP to resume their merger discussions, because Tyson Foods did not have a contractually permissible reason to terminate its merger agreement with IBP when it announced in March that it was rescinding the transaction. While I do not want to take issue with the court's findings, I am concerned about the fact that this merger looks like it will go through and, consequently, the meat industry will consolidate even further. Beginning last September when Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette/Rawhide Holdings Corporation, then Smithfield Foods, and finally Tyson Foods started a bidding war for IBP, I pushed the Justice Department to carefully scrutinize each possible business combination. In January, I wrote the Justice Department urging it to vigorously review the Tyson- IBP transaction from all angles, and to consult with the Agriculture Department to better ascertain the ramifications of such a merger on family farmers and independent producers. I would have thought that a combination of the Nation's largest poultry producer with the world's largest producer of beef and pork products would result in significantly reduced market opportunities, as well as increased the possibility of anti-competitive business practices. I shared the concerns of many farmers and producers that this transaction would adversely impact their ability to obtain fair prices for their products. I was also concerned that a combined IBP-Tyson presence in the retail market would negatively affect product choice and the prices consumers pay at the meat counter. But the Justice Department determined earlier this year that the potential negative impact on competition was insufficient to sustain an injunction against the merger under the antitrust laws. Because the Justice Department completed its antitrust review in January, I understand that there is nothing further for the Department to do in terms of an antitrust review if the parties re-engage their merger talks in due course and without changes to the transaction. But I remain seriously concerned about the impact this merger will have on our farm community and I hope that, if this merger is ultimately completed, the Justice Department will carefully monitor whether a merged IBP-Tyson will have unintended consequences on competition in the meat economy and, if it does, take appropriate action. Nevertheless, this development re-energizes my gut feeling that we need to somehow change the way ag mergers are reviewed and approved. So, today I'm re-introducing a bill I authored last year, the ``Agriculture Competition Enhancement Act,'' to help address some of the competition concerns of America's family farmers and independent producers. My bill will refocus the merger review process as it pertains to agri-business, and will enhance the Department of Agriculture's ability to address anti-competitive activity in agriculture. I believe that bringing to the table a greater understanding of ag producers' needs when ag mergers are reviewed is the biggest missing element to making the merger review process as fair as possible. Closing this gap is the heart of my proposal. Several provisions in the ``Agriculture Competition Enhancement Act'' are based on proposals by the American Farm Bureau, the largest organization representing producers of agricultural commodities. However, I'd like to briefly discuss what I believe to be the most important components of this bill: the enhancement of the Department of Agriculture's role in the Hart-Scott-Rodino review process, the creation of a new ``impact on family farmers and independent producers'' standard of review by the Department of Agriculture for ag mergers, and the expansion of the Department of Agriculture's ability to take regulatory and enforcement action with respect to anti- competitive and unfair practices in the agricultural sector. Far more than the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Agriculture has extraordinary knowledge and expertise in agricultural matters. The Department of Agriculture formulates ag policy for the Nation, and works closely with the farm community about their various concerns. So, I believe that the Department of Agriculture is the office that can best assess the true impact of ag mergers and other business transactions on farmers, ranchers and independent producers. That is why my bill seeks to expand and enhance the role that the Department of Agriculture plays in the antitrust review of ag mergers. Currently, when the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission assesses a proposed merger, the focus of their analysis is weighted heavily toward the impact of the transaction on consumers. However, agriculture is unique. The antitrust laws already recognize this with the ag cooperative exception. But I believe we need to go further by requiring the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission to specifically take into account the effect ag mergers have on family farmers and producers. The ``Agriculture Competition Enhancement Act'' would do just that by requiring the Department of Agriculture to conduct an assessment of how a proposed ag transaction will affect family farmers and independent producers and their access to the market. I realize that presently the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission informally consult with the Department of Agriculture when they consider ag mergers. But I believe that the current process does not sufficiently ensure that the farm community's concerns are being adequately addressed. The approach I advocate will ensure that producers' concerns and needs are fully discussed when federal agencies examine proposed ag business mergers. By guaranteeing inclusion and openness for family farmers and independent producers, we can go a long way toward alleviating their understandable anxiety about an increasingly concentrated industry. So my bill requires the Department of Agriculture to do a merger review that focuses on the needs of producers by examining whether the transaction would cause substantial harm to farmers' ability to compete in the marketplace. This review would be conducted simultaneously with the Justice Department's antitrust review, in order to minimize disruption to the current merger review process. Further, my bill encourages the parties and the Department of Agriculture to resolve concerns about the proposed merger during this timeframe. If its concerns are not satisfied, the Department of Agriculture has the ability to challenge the merger in federal court to either stop the merger, or to impose appropriate conditions or limitations on the proposed transaction. Recognizing that the Department of Agriculture needs to have an individual who will perform this new antitrust responsibility, my bill calls for the creation of a Special Counsel for Competition Matters at the Department of Agriculture. My bill also provides for increased funding for competition matters, and authorizes additional specialized staff--including antitrust attorneys and economists--at the Justice Department and Department of Agriculture, to ensure that these agencies have the appropriate resources to accomplish the goals of this legislation. Furthermore, under my bill, the competition protection authorities of the Department of Agriculture's Packers and Stockyards Division are extended to include anti-competitive practices by dealers, processors and commission merchants of all ag commodities. This expanded authority, based on provisions in the current Packers and Stockyards Act, will give the Department of Agriculture an increased ability to look at unfair, deceptive and predatory business practices by all ag businesses, not just packers and poultry farmers. As my colleagues from rural States know, ag concentration is one of the most important issues in agriculture today. Other members here in Congress have introduced bills or are presently working to craft their own legislative proposals to respond to the concerns of America's farmers. I want it to be clearly understood that it is my desire to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as the Bush Administration, so that we can make meaningful progress on this issue. I know that my proposal has its critics, but I am willing and ready to listen to their concerns and work on constructive changes to my bill. But I truly hope that we can achieve a bipartisan compromise sooner rather than later on this issue, so we can calm farmers' fears about high levels of ag concentration. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as most of my colleagues know, agriculture is a crucial industry for Iowa. The small, independent family farmer is an important thread which holds together my State's cultural, economic and social fabric. In fact, the family farmer is one of the best things about Iowa's heritage. My colleagues are well aware that I'm committed to preserving and supporting this valuable member of Iowa's communities. Agriculture is a risky business. I know that from personal experience, I've lived and worked on a farm all my life. But these days, farmers feel especially vulnerable. ``Merger-mania'' has been running rampant, with large companies joining forces to create new business giants in every sector of the economy, including agriculture. The agriculture sector has witnessed a number of mega-mergers and alliances affecting grain and livestock. And the independent producer is seeing fewer choices of who to buy from and who to sell to. More and more family farmers and independent producers are feeling the pressure and impact of concentration in agriculture. Good men and women who have farmed for years and years are going out of business. Yet, the independent farmer is one of the most efficient businessman in our Nation's economy. That's why the United States can feed itself and a good portion of the world. I've said before that I am not of the belief that all mergers are in and of themselves wrong or unfair to family farmers. But we need to make sure that open and fair access to the marketplace is preserved for everyone. We need to make sure that large businesses are not acting in a predatory or anti-competitive manner. We need to make sure that family farmers and independent producers can compete on a level playing field. That's how we can keep our economy strong, our agricultural community vibrant and competitive, and our consumers happy. Now we've heard that a Delaware Court has ordered Tyson Foods and IBP to resume their merger discussions, because Tyson Foods did not have a contractually permissible reason to terminate its merger agreement with IBP when it announced in March that it was rescinding the transaction. While I do not want to take issue with the court's findings, I am concerned about the fact that this merger looks like it will go through and, consequently, the meat industry will consolidate even further. Beginning last September when Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette/Rawhide Holdings Corporation, then Smithfield Foods, and finally Tyson Foods started a bidding war for IBP, I pushed the Justice Department to carefully scrutinize each possible business combination. In January, I wrote the Justice Department urging it to vigorously review the Tyson- IBP transaction from all angles, and to consult with the Agriculture Department to better ascertain the ramifications of such a merger on family farmers and independent producers. I would have thought that a combination of the Nation's largest poultry producer with the world's largest producer of beef and pork products would result in significantly reduced market opportunities, as well as increased the possibility of anti-competitive business practices. I shared the concerns of many farmers and producers that this transaction would adversely impact their ability to obtain fair prices for their products. I was also concerned that a combined IBP-Tyson presence in the retail market would negatively affect product choice and the prices consumers pay at the meat counter. But the Justice Department determined earlier this year that the potential negative impact on competition was insufficient to sustain an injunction against the merger under the antitrust laws. Because the Justice Department completed its antitrust review in January, I understand that there is nothing further for the Department to do in terms of an antitrust review if the parties re-engage their merger talks in due course and without changes to the transaction. But I remain seriously concerned about the impact this merger will have on our farm community and I hope that, if this merger is ultimately completed, the Justice Department will carefully monitor whether a merged IBP-Tyson will have unintended consequences on competition in the meat economy and, if it does, take appropriate action. Nevertheless, this development re-energizes my gut feeling that we need to somehow change the way ag mergers are reviewed and approved. So, today I'm re-introducing a bill I authored last year, the ``Agriculture Competition Enhancement Act,'' to help address some of the competition concerns of America's family farmers and independent producers. My bill will refocus the merger review process as it pertains to agri-business, and will enhance the Department of Agriculture's ability to address anti-competitive activity in agriculture. I believe that bringing to the table a greater understanding of ag producers' needs when ag mergers are reviewed is the biggest missing element to making the merger review process as fair as possible. Closing this gap is the heart of my proposal. Several provisions in the ``Agriculture Competition Enhancement Act'' are based on proposals by the American Farm Bureau, the largest organization representing producers of agricultural commodities. However, I'd like to briefly discuss what I believe to be the most important components of this bill: the enhancement of the Department of Agriculture's role in the Hart-Scott-Rodino review process, the creation of a new ``impact on family farmers and independent producers'' standard of review by the Department of Agriculture for ag mergers, and the expansion of the Department of Agriculture's ability to take regulatory and enforcement action with respect to anti- competitive and unfair practices in the agricultural sector. Far more than the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Agriculture has extraordinary knowledge and expertise in agricultural matters. The Department of Agriculture formulates ag policy for the Nation, and works closely with the farm community about their various concerns. So, I believe that the Department of Agriculture is the office that can best assess the true impact of ag mergers and other business transactions on farmers, ranchers and independent producers. That is why my bill seeks to expand and enhance the role that the Department of Agriculture plays in the antitrust review of ag mergers. Currently, when the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission assesses a proposed merger, the focus of their analysis is weighted heavily toward the impact of the transaction on consumers. However, agriculture is unique. The antitrust laws already recognize this with the ag cooperative exception. But I believe we need to go further by requiring the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission to specifically take into account the effect ag mergers have on family farmers and producers. The ``Agriculture Competition Enhancement Act'' would do just that by requiring the Department of Agriculture to conduct an assessment of how a proposed ag transaction will affect family farmers and independent producers and their access to the market. I realize that presently the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission informally consult with the Department of Agriculture when they consider ag mergers. But I believe that the current process does not sufficiently ensure that the farm community's concerns are being adequately addressed. The approach I advocate will ensure that producers' concerns and needs are fully discussed when federal agencies examine proposed ag business mergers. By guaranteeing inclusion and openness for family farmers and independent producers, we can go a long way toward alleviating their understandable anxiety about an increasingly concentrated industry. So my bill requires the Department of Agriculture to do a merger review that focuses on the needs of producers by examining whether the transaction would cause substantial harm to farmers' ability to compete in the marketplace. This review would be conducted simultaneously with the Justice Department's antitrust review, in order to minimize disruption to the current merger review process. Further, my bill encourages the parties and the Department of Agriculture to resolve concerns about the proposed merger during this timeframe. If its concerns are not satisfied, the Department of Agriculture has the ability to challenge the merger in federal court to either stop the merger, or to impose appropriate conditions or limitations on the proposed transaction. Recognizing that the Department of Agriculture needs to have an individual who will perform this new antitrust responsibility, my bill calls for the creation of a Special Counsel for Competition Matters at the Department of Agriculture. My bill also provides for increased funding for competition matters, and authorizes additional specialized staff--including antitrust attorneys and economists--at the Justice Department and Department of Agriculture, to ensure that these agencies have the appropriate resources to accomplish the goals of this legislation. Furthermore, under my bill, the competition protection authorities of the Department of Agriculture's Packers and Stockyards Division are extended to include anti-competitive practices by dealers, processors and commission merchants of all ag commodities. This expanded authority, based on provisions in the current Packers and Stockyards Act, will give the Department of Agriculture an increased ability to look at unfair, deceptive and predatory business practices by all ag businesses, not just packers and poultry farmers. As my colleagues from rural States know, ag concentration is one of the most important issues in agriculture today. Other members here in Congress have introduced bills or are presently working to craft their own legislative proposals to respond to the concerns of America's farmers. I want it to be clearly understood that it is my desire to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as the Bush Administration, so that we can make meaningful progress on this issue. I know that my proposal has its critics, but I am willing and ready to listen to their concerns and work on constructive changes to my bill. But I truly hope that we can achieve a bipartisan compromise sooner rather than later on this issue, so we can calm farmers' fears about high levels of ag concentration. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to re-authorize the Drug Free Communities Act. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senator Biden, Senator Smith, and Senator Daschle in introducing this legislation which will continue for another 5 years the successes that we have found with Drug Free Communities Program. In addition, it builds upon the successes that coalitions have had by encouraging them to establish a coalition mentoring program for nearby communities. Finally, this act will authorize funding for the National Anti-Drug Coalition Institute, which will provide education, training, and technical assistance to leaders of community coalitions. Substance abuse remains a problem in communities across the country. Substance abuse is the cause of or associated with many of today's problems, but is a preventable behavior. Community anti-drug coalitions are implementing long-term strategies to address the problem of substance abuse in their communities. By bringing together a cross- section of the community to address a common problem, community coalitions are discovering and implementing unique community solutions to reduce and prevent the incidence of substance abuse in their communities. And that idea, that communities are best suited to address their own problems, is the underlying premise that has been proven with the success of the Drug Free Communities program. There are three key features to the Drug Free Communities Act. First, communities must take the initiative. In order to receive support, a community coalition must demonstrate that there is a long-term commitment to address teen-drug use. It must have a sustainable coalition that includes the involvement of representatives from a wide variety of community activists. In addition, every coalition must show that it can sustain itself. Community coalitions must be in existence for at least 6 months before applying. They are only eligible to receive support if they can match these donations dollar for dollar with non-Federal funding, up to $100,000 per coalition. An Advisory Commission, consisting of local community leaders, and State and national experts in the field of substance abuse, has worked closely with the Office of National Drug Control Policy to oversee the successful management and growth of this grant program. Because of this partnership, grants have gone to communities and programs that can make a difference in the lives of our children. Today, we have better evidence that coalitions are working, that they are making a difference. A recent study sponsored by the Annie E. Casey Foundation documented the difference that eight community coalitions, all of which have received funding through the Drug Free Communities program, from around the country have made in their communities. In addition to continuing this successful program, this re- authorization legislation adds the possibility for a supplemental grant to the Drug-Free Communities Grant Program. The supplemental grant is available to any coalition that has been in existence for at least 5 years, achieved measurable results in youth substance abuse prevention and treatment, have staff or Coalition members willing to serve as mentors for persons interested in starting or expanding a Coalition in their community, identified demonstrable support from members of the identified community, and have created a detailed plan for mentoring either newly formed or developing Coalitions. Coalitions receiving the supplemental grant must use these funds to support and encourage the development of new, self-supporting community coalitions focused on the prevention and treatment of substance abuse in the new coalition's community. This supplemental grant can be renewed provided the recipient coalition continues to meet the underlying criteria and has made progress in the development of new coalitions. Starting a new anti-drug coalition is a difficult exercise, which makes the success of these coalitions I mentioned earlier all the more remarkable. But I also know this from personal experience. For the past 4 years, I have worked with leaders from across my State of Iowa to start and grow the Face It Together Coalition, a State-wide, anti-drug coalition designed to bring together people from all walks of life, business leaders, doctors and nurses, law enforcement, school professionals, members of the media, and so on, to work together toward a common goal: keeping kids drug free. In working with FIT, it has become clear that by working together, everyone can accomplish more. This is a solid, grass-roots initiative that can work. But it hasn't been an easy process, and it will continue to require the dedication and commitment of all of our board members. One of the biggest challenges that we face has not been finding ideas of what to do, or even finding effective ongoing projects in the State, but identifying and securing funding to support the expansion of our activities. Much can and has been done by volunteers, and through the networking connections that the Board members are able to bring to the table. In addition, this legislation will authorize $2 million in federal funding for two years for the National Community Anti-Drug Coalition Institute. Modeled after the success we have seen from the National Drug Court Institute, this national non-profit organization will represent, provide technical assistance and training, and have special expertise and broad, national-level experience in community anti-drug coalitions. The funding for the Institute will be to 1. provide education, training, and technical assistance to key members of community anti- drug coalitions, 2. develop and disseminate evaluation tools, mechanisms, and measures to assess and document coalition performance, and 3. bridge the gap between research and practice by providing community coalitions with practical information based on the most current research on coalition-related issues. The Institute is expected to last for more than 2 years, and to pursue and obtain additional funding from sources other than the Federal Government. In conclusion, I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. It is supported by the Administration. It has the support of communities all across the Nation. The Drug Free Communities Program works. I look forward to working with my colleagues here and in the House to ensure quick passage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to draw attention to key influences in youth drug use as reported in a national study, released by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, entitled Risk and Preventive Factors for Adolescent Drug Use: Findings from the 1997 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. As summarized in the Spring 2001 edition of the magazine SAMHSA News, this study reported ``[p]eer use and peer attitudes are two of the strongest predictors of marijuana use among all young people.'' For youth in the age range of 12-17, using marijuana in the past year was 39 times higher if close friends had used it versus if they had friends who had not used it. The odds for the same age group were 16 times higher if adolescents thought their friends would not be ``very upset'' if they used marijuana. While peer attitudes were more influential than parental attitudes, youth were still 9.6 times more likely to smoke marijuana if they viewed their parents ``would not be very upset'' versus ``very upset.'' Other risk factors for past-year marijuana use were the youth's own use of alcohol and tobacco, the parent's attitude about alcohol and tobacco, if youth could not talk to their parents about serious problems, if youth were not enrolled in school, if youth were receiving poor grades in school, or if they did not attend religious services once a week. Interestingly, the factors that most correlated with cigarette use were the same factors associated with alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs. Finally, youth who had not received in-school drug/alcohol education were slightly more likely to have used marijuana in the past year than those who had not. The analysis results were uniform across race/ethnicity. The average person, much less a teenager, does not wake up one day and decide to do a line of cocaine or take a hit of heroin. There is a general progression of both actions and attitudes. The so-called ``softer'' drugs of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other club or synthetic drugs are actually ``gateways'' that precede the use of cocaine and heroin. According to a 14-year veteran of drug treatment in New York City, the average age of new users she sees has dropped from 17 or 18 years to now 13. Quoting her from a recent newspaper article, ``[w]e've seen the age of first use drop dramatically''. . .``[k]ids are going from doing marijuana to drugs like ecstasy and rohypnol in months.'' A Spartanburg County South Carolina sheriff, also quoted in a recent newspaper article, reminds us ``[t]hat the first responsibility of parenthood is to protect the child.'' Backing up the SAMSHA observations on peers and peer attitudes, he concluded ``parents need to pay close attention to the way their children act and who they're hanging around with.'' It may be difficult to raise teenagers or keep your children off all illegal substances, but there are some easy first steps and warning signs to heed. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIDA, handbook ``Preventing Drug Abuse Among Children and Adolescents,'' the best ``protective factors'' include ``strong bonds with parents, experience of parental monitoring with clear rules of conduct within the family unit, involvement of parents in the lives of their children, success in school performance, strong bonds with prosocial institutions such as family, school, and religious organizations, and adoption of conventional norms about drug use.'' With respect to family relationships, NIDA research shows that ``parents need to take a more active role in their children's lives, including talking to them about drugs, monitoring their activities, getting to know their friends, and understanding their problems and concerns.'' These are simple, positive actions that all of us, as friends, peers, coworkers, concerned adults, or parents can start today.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, on behalf of myself and my colleague, Senator Torricelli, I am introducing legislation, the Medical Savings Availability Act of 2001, which would make the availability of medical savings accounts permanent and would make it possible for any individual to purchase a medical savings account. Our bill would liberalize existing law authorizing medical savings accounts in a number of other respects. Medical savings accounts are a good idea. They are basically IRAs, an idea everybody understands, which must be used for payment of medical expenses. The widespread use of medical savings accounts should have several beneficial consequences. They should reduce health care costs. Administrative costs should be lower. Consumers with MSAs should use health care services in a more discriminating manner. Consumers with MSAs should be more selective in choosing providers. This should cause those providers to lower their prices to attract medical savings account holders as patients. Medical savings accounts can also help to put the patient back into the health care equation. Patients should make more cost-conscious choices about routine health care. Patients with MSAs would have complete choice of provider. Medical savings accounts should make health care coverage more dependable. MSAs are completely portable. MSAs are still the property of the individual even if they change jobs. Hence, for those with MSAs, job changes do not threaten them with the loss of health insurance. Medical savings accounts should increase health care coverage. Perhaps as many as half of the more than 40 million Americans who are uninsured at any point in time are without health insurance only for four months or less. A substantial number of these people are uninsured because they are between jobs. Use of medical savings accounts should reduce the number of the uninsured by equipping people to pay their own health expenses while unemployed. Medical savings accounts should promote personal savings. Since pre- tax monies are deposited in them, there should be a strong tax incentive to use them. As I understand it, there are approximately 100,000 MSA accounts covering a total of approximately 250,000. I understand also that approximately one-third of those who have set up medical savings accounts were previously uninsured. But medical savings accounts have fallen short of their promise because of various restrictions in the authorizing law. The present law has a sunset of December, 2001, which has discouraged insurers from offering such plans. Current MSA law prohibits around 70 percent of the working population from purchasing them because purchase is limited to the self-employed or to employees of small businesses of less than 50 employees. The bill we are introducing today would eliminate the restrictions that have limited the availability of MSAs: First, it would remove the December, 2001, sunset provision and make the availability of MSAs permanent; second, it would repeal the limitations on the number of MSAs that can be established; third, it stipulates that the availability of these accounts is not limited to employees of small employers and self-employed individuals; fourth, it increases the amount of the deduction allowed for contributions to medical savings accounts to 100 percent of the deductible; fifth, it permits both employees and employers to contribute to medical savings accounts; sixth, it reduces the permitted deductibles under high deductible plans from $1,500 in the case of individuals to $1,000 and from $3,000 in the case of couples to $2,000; seventh, the bill would permit medical savings accounts to be offered under cafeteria plans; and finally, the bill would encourage preferred provider organizations to offer MSAs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to re-authorize the Drug Free Communities Act. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senator Biden, Senator Smith, and Senator Daschle in introducing this legislation which will continue for another 5 years the successes that we have found with Drug Free Communities Program. In addition, it builds upon the successes that coalitions have had by encouraging them to establish a coalition mentoring program for nearby communities. Finally, this act will authorize funding for the National Anti-Drug Coalition Institute, which will provide education, training, and technical assistance to leaders of community coalitions. Substance abuse remains a problem in communities across the country. Substance abuse is the cause of or associated with many of today's problems, but is a preventable behavior. Community anti-drug coalitions are implementing long-term strategies to address the problem of substance abuse in their communities. By bringing together a cross- section of the community to address a common problem, community coalitions are discovering and implementing unique community solutions to reduce and prevent the incidence of substance abuse in their communities. And that idea, that communities are best suited to address their own problems, is the underlying premise that has been proven with the success of the Drug Free Communities program. There are three key features to the Drug Free Communities Act. First, communities must take the initiative. In order to receive support, a community coalition must demonstrate that there is a long-term commitment to address teen-drug use. It must have a sustainable coalition that includes the involvement of representatives from a wide variety of community activists. In addition, every coalition must show that it can sustain itself. Community coalitions must be in existence for at least 6 months before applying. They are only eligible to receive support if they can match these donations dollar for dollar with non-Federal funding, up to $100,000 per coalition. An Advisory Commission, consisting of local community leaders, and State and national experts in the field of substance abuse, has worked closely with the Office of National Drug Control Policy to oversee the successful management and growth of this grant program. Because of this partnership, grants have gone to communities and programs that can make a difference in the lives of our children. Today, we have better evidence that coalitions are working, that they are making a difference. A recent study sponsored by the Annie E. Casey Foundation documented the difference that eight community coalitions, all of which have received funding through the Drug Free Communities program, from around the country have made in their communities. In addition to continuing this successful program, this re- authorization legislation adds the possibility for a supplemental grant to the Drug-Free Communities Grant Program. The supplemental grant is available to any coalition that has been in existence for at least 5 years, achieved measurable results in youth substance abuse prevention and treatment, have staff or Coalition members willing to serve as mentors for persons interested in starting or expanding a Coalition in their community, identified demonstrable support from members of the identified community, and have created a detailed plan for mentoring either newly formed or developing Coalitions. Coalitions receiving the supplemental grant must use these funds to support and encourage the development of new, self-supporting community coalitions focused on the prevention and treatment of substance abuse in the new coalition's community. This supplemental grant can be renewed provided the recipient coalition continues to meet the underlying criteria and has made progress in the development of new coalitions. Starting a new anti-drug coalition is a difficult exercise, which makes the success of these coalitions I mentioned earlier all the more remarkable. But I also know this from personal experience. For the past 4 years, I have worked with leaders from across my State of Iowa to start and grow the Face It Together Coalition, a State-wide, anti-drug coalition designed to bring together people from all walks of life, business leaders, doctors and nurses, law enforcement, school professionals, members of the media, and so on, to work together toward a common goal: keeping kids drug free. In working with FIT, it has become clear that by working together, everyone can accomplish more. This is a solid, grass-roots initiative that can work. But it hasn't been an easy process, and it will continue to require the dedication and commitment of all of our board members. One of the biggest challenges that we face has not been finding ideas of what to do, or even finding effective ongoing projects in the State, but identifying and securing funding to support the expansion of our activities. Much can and has been done by volunteers, and through the networking connections that the Board members are able to bring to the table. In addition, this legislation will authorize $2 million in federal funding for two years for the National Community Anti-Drug Coalition Institute. Modeled after the success we have seen from the National Drug Court Institute, this national non-profit organization will represent, provide technical assistance and training, and have special expertise and broad, national-level experience in community anti-drug coalitions. The funding for the Institute will be to 1. provide education, training, and technical assistance to key members of community anti- drug coalitions, 2. develop and disseminate evaluation tools, mechanisms, and measures to assess and document coalition performance, and 3. bridge the gap between research and practice by providing community coalitions with practical information based on the most current research on coalition-related issues. The Institute is expected to last for more than 2 years, and to pursue and obtain additional funding from sources other than the Federal Government. In conclusion, I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. It is supported by the Administration. It has the support of communities all across the Nation. The Drug Free Communities Program works. I look forward to working with my colleagues here and in the House to ensure quick passage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, on behalf of myself and my colleague, Senator Torricelli, I am introducing legislation, the Medical Savings Availability Act of 2001, which would make the availability of medical savings accounts permanent and would make it possible for any individual to purchase a medical savings account. Our bill would liberalize existing law authorizing medical savings accounts in a number of other respects. Medical savings accounts are a good idea. They are basically IRAs, an idea everybody understands, which must be used for payment of medical expenses. The widespread use of medical savings accounts should have several beneficial consequences. They should reduce health care costs. Administrative costs should be lower. Consumers with MSAs should use health care services in a more discriminating manner. Consumers with MSAs should be more selective in choosing providers. This should cause those providers to lower their prices to attract medical savings account holders as patients. Medical savings accounts can also help to put the patient back into the health care equation. Patients should make more cost-conscious choices about routine health care. Patients with MSAs would have complete choice of provider. Medical savings accounts should make health care coverage more dependable. MSAs are completely portable. MSAs are still the property of the individual even if they change jobs. Hence, for those with MSAs, job changes do not threaten them with the loss of health insurance. Medical savings accounts should increase health care coverage. Perhaps as many as half of the more than 40 million Americans who are uninsured at any point in time are without health insurance only for four months or less. A substantial number of these people are uninsured because they are between jobs. Use of medical savings accounts should reduce the number of the uninsured by equipping people to pay their own health expenses while unemployed. Medical savings accounts should promote personal savings. Since pre- tax monies are deposited in them, there should be a strong tax incentive to use them. As I understand it, there are approximately 100,000 MSA accounts covering a total of approximately 250,000. I understand also that approximately one-third of those who have set up medical savings accounts were previously uninsured. But medical savings accounts have fallen short of their promise because of various restrictions in the authorizing law. The present law has a sunset of December, 2001, which has discouraged insurers from offering such plans. Current MSA law prohibits around 70 percent of the working population from purchasing them because purchase is limited to the self-employed or to employees of small businesses of less than 50 employees. The bill we are introducing today would eliminate the restrictions that have limited the availability of MSAs: First, it would remove the December, 2001, sunset provision and make the availability of MSAs permanent; second, it would repeal the limitations on the number of MSAs that can be established; third, it stipulates that the availability of these accounts is not limited to employees of small employers and self-employed individuals; fourth, it increases the amount of the deduction allowed for contributions to medical savings accounts to 100 percent of the deductible; fifth, it permits both employees and employers to contribute to medical savings accounts; sixth, it reduces the permitted deductibles under high deductible plans from $1,500 in the case of individuals to $1,000 and from $3,000 in the case of couples to $2,000; seventh, the bill would permit medical savings accounts to be offered under cafeteria plans; and finally, the bill would encourage preferred provider organizations to offer MSAs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the education reform bill. I am encouraged by the renewed emphasis President Bush and many in Congress have placed on education and I welcome this opportunity to share my views on this important subject. Improving elementary and secondary education has long been a goal of those of us in Congress. However, for too long, the debate at the Federal level has focused on the same old ideas that boil down to more spending without ensuring results and more Federal control of local schools. That is why I am pleased that President Bush has put forward a plan for education that takes us in a new direction. S. 1, the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, encompasses the President's main goals and puts the Federal role in education on the right track. Since 1965, when Congress embarked on its first elementary and secondary education initiative, the Federal Government has continued to expand its role in the area of education. Yet, while the Federal role in education has increased, accountability has not. The Federal Government continues to spend more and more on education while creating complicated and overlapping programs that may or may not address the needs of local schools. In fact, research has shown that, while Federal funding for education has increased substantially over the last 30 years, students' test scores have not shown improvement. The BEST Act seeks to change this situation by taking steps to ensure accountability for the use of Federal education dollars. Under this bill, States will be required to develop their own strategy to measure improvement and hold schools and school districts accountable through the use of State-run assessments. In this way, schools and school districts that fail to help students achieve can be identified so that assistance can be provided and necessary corrective action taken. Going hand in hand with the need for greater accountability is the necessity for increased flexibility for States and local school districts. Part of the problem of stagnant student achievement despite increased Federal funding is that Federal funding comes with a disproportionate degree of Federal control. Federal micro-managing of classrooms ties the hands of teachers and can actually prevent them from meeting the individual needs of students. We in Washington must face the fact that we cannot possibly know what's best for every school in America. My home State of Iowa contains a wide variation of school districts from rural to urban. Students in Des Moines are likely to have different needs from those of students in Lineville. What works in Davenport may not work in Sioux Center. How then can we in Washington direct Federal funding to meet the needs of all the students of Iowa, much less vastly different regions of our country, without providing for a substantial degree of local control? If States are to meet tough new goals for student achievement, they must be given the freedom to do so without having their hands tied by unnecessary Federal regulations. This bill does just that by consolidating related programs into more flexible block grants and allowing schools to waive certain Federal regulations in return for results. It is also essential that parents have the opportunity for greater involvement in their child's education. Under the BEST Act, school report cards will be issued so that parents will have information on the quality of their child's school, and support will be given to local educational agencies and nonprofit organizations to implement parental involvement programs that are designed to improve student performance. In addition, parents of disadvantaged students in failing schools will be given the choice to move their children to a better school. In closing, while this bill does provide for a substantially increased investment in elementary and secondary education, it does so in a framework of real reform that provides greater flexibility to states and local school districts in return for demonstrated results. This bill represents a shift from the old Washington-knows-best view of education to one which empowers states, local communities, and parents to improve student achievement. President Bush has called on us to ensure that no child in America is left behind. The Better Education for Students and Teachers bill will put us on course to meet that challenge.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Cochran amendment to the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act. Specifically, I would like to speak to two elements of this amendment that are of particular importance to me and my State of Iowa. I would first like to speak to a portion of this amendment that address an often overlooked segment of our student population, gifted and talented children. There are approximately three million children in the United Sates who are considered gifted and talented. It is important to point out that these gifted and talented children do not simply possess an extraordinary level of intelligence, but they actually have a unique way of thinking and learning. Gifted and talented children look at the world differently and often have a different way of interacting socially. As a result, gifted and talented students have different educational needs from other students. These remarkable children have enormous potential. Today's gifted and talented child may grow up to become a leader in the field of science or a world-renowned performer. However, this will not happen automatically. Gifted and talented children need to be challenged and their unique skills must be nurtured. Currently, many gifted and talented children do not receive the educational programs and services they need to live up to their potential. In fact, many gifted and talented children lose interest in school; they learn how to expend minimum effort for top grades, have low motivation, and develop poor work habits. Others abandon their education altogether and drop out of school. This is a tragedy not only for the students, but also for our society. Much of the Federal role in education is focused on helping Stats to meet the needs of disadvantage students and students with special learning needs. Currently, the availability and quality of gifted and talented educational services varies widely from State to State. This situation adversely affects all gifted and talented students, but especially disadvantaged students. In areas without adequate public school services for gifted and talented students, more well-off parents can afford to place their children in a private school that offers gifted and talented programs or pay for private supplemental equational services like tutors and summer camps. Meanwhile, disadvantaged talented and gifted students remain in public school settings that cannot meet their unique educational needs without federal assistance. My gifted and talented initiative, which is contained in the Cochran amendment, will help to ensure that ALL gifted and talented students have the opportunity to achieve their highest potential by providing grants, based on State's student population, to State education agencies. These grants will be used to identify and provide educational services to gifted and talented students from all economic, ethnic, and racial backgrounds--including students with limited English proficiency and students with disabilities. My proposal outlines four broad spending areas but leaves decisions on how best to serve these students to states and local school districts. The legislation ensures that the Federal money benefits students by requiring the State education agency to distribute not less than 88 percent of the funds to schools and that the funds must supplement, not supplant, funds currently being spent. Additionally, rather than simply accepting Federal funds, States must make their own commitment to these students by matching 20 percent of the Federal funds. The matching requirements will help ensure that programs and services for gifted education develop a strong foothold in the States. The Cochran amendment also reauthorizes the Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program. The Javits Program is a research program that funds a national research center and provides grants to a wide range of public and private entities in order to build a nationwide capability to meet the special educational needs of gifted and talented students. The research results from the Javits Program provide invaluable tools to help schools and teachers learn how to identify gifted and talented students and improve gifted and talented programs. I would like to emphasize that, because of the nature of this program, a continued Federal commitment is required. It simply wouldn't be practical or prudent to ask each State to conduct its own research into gifted and talented education. And yet, the research fostered by this program remains essential in ensuring that teachers have the best possible information about how to help gifted and talented students reach their full potential. I am pleased that my own State of Iowa is one of the leaders in gifted education. Indeed, I have learned of many remarkable young people and dedicated education professionals through the advocacy efforts of the Iowa Talented and Gifted Association. I have come to believe, strongly, that Congress must support initiatives designed to identify and serve the special learning needs of gifted and talented children. Our Nation's gifted and talented students are among our great untapped resources. However, our help is needed to ensure that States and local school districts are able to address the unique educational needs of gifted and talented students. In the spirit of the President's challenge to leave no child behind, I would urge my colleagues to remember America's gifted and talented children. I would also like to express my support for another portion of this amendment that addresses an important educational need in our country. The Cochran amendment reauthorizes provisions for the National Writing Project. The National Writing Project is a nationally recognized nonprofit organization that works to improve student writing achievement by improving the teaching and learning of writing in the Nation's schools. Each summer, successful writing teachers at 167 local sites in 49 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia attend annual summer institutes through the National Writing Project. At these summer institutes, teachers examine their classroom practices, conduct research, and develop their own writing skills. After completion of one of these summer institutes, the participating teachers return home and provide professional development workshops for other teachers in their home schools and communities. These follow-up activities are conducted throughout the entire academic year in order to maintain and encourage continued use of writing skills. As a result, the National Writing Project is able to reach far more teachers than would be possible through directly administered professional development activities and teachers are able to reap the benefits the whole year long. I proud to say that the National Writing Project has a long and successful history in Iowa. The Iowa Writing Project was initiated in 1978 and was among the first in the Nation. Since its inception, over 8,000 teachers have taken part in the annual summer institutes. And, this group of teachers has served as the means of administering and conducting workshops and in-service training programs for many more thousands of Iowa teachers. In fact, upon returning home from attending one of those summer institutes, Iowa Writing Project participants can in turn impact as many as fifty percent or more of their fellow educators in their community. Thus, the relatively small number of teachers who participate in the Iowa Writing Project summer institutes can provide professional development opportunities in writing for entire communities. The success of the National Writing Project has resulted in substantial support in the areas where it has been implemented. In fact, for every dollar of Federal funding, writing project sites generate more than six dollars in support from States, host sites, and other public and private sources. Yet, while the National Writing Project has a regional focus and widespread local support, the 167 local sites could not operate without the coordination and support provided by the national organization. At a time when both institutions of higher education and businesses are increasingly discovering that Americans do not have the writing skills they need to be successful, it is essential that we support proven writing programs, like the National Writing Project. The two portions of this amendment which I have addressed are examples of areas where there are clear educational needs that cannot be met by states alone and where our existing efforts have proven successful. I support the general goals of the B.E.S.T. bill, including consolidating or eliminating programs that are not working or that interfere with decisions that are more properly made at the State or local level. However, where our efforts have been shown to be successful and needed, our support should be maintained. Therefore, I would urge my colleagues to support the Cochran amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, since 1963, the month of May has helped the Nation focus on the contributions and achievements of America's older citizens. The image of those over the age of 65 is dramatically different than it was just a generation ago. Older Americans increasingly redefine modern maturity, re-shape cultural boundaries and dispel age-related stereotypes associated with getting older. They are leaders in our families, in our workplaces and in our communities. One of these leaders is an 80-year-old woman from Milford, IA. Dorothy Frederick understands the value of helping others. Through her initiative, concern and commitment, she has touched the lives of many in her community. Mrs. Frederick and her husband, Ted, moved to Milford in 1950 where the couple has owned a hardware business for fifty years. After the couple's five children were grown, Mrs. Frederick's desire to stay active led to her increasing involvement in the community. Through her church, Mrs. Frederick helped start meals on wheels in Milford more than twenty years ago. Over that time, she has gotten other churches in the community involved in the program. Today, meals on wheels is still going strong in Milford, and Mrs. Frederick continues to be the program coordinator. She is ``on call'' with the program each day and is responsible for finding drivers and coordinating their activities. She even fills in as a substitute driver when needed. Mrs. Frederick's initiative also led to the establishment of the Dinner Date program in Milford nearly twenty years ago. Every Tuesday, Mrs. Frederick is responsible for serving meals at the community meal site to senior citizens and others. Her ongoing commitment to these programs has contributed to their success all of these years. Mrs. Frederick is a woman who likes a challenge. After serving six years on the city council, she was elected Mayor of Milford and served the better part of her six-year tenure while in her sixties. As mayor, Mrs. Frederick made her mark by fulfilling a campaign promise to put a streetlight on every corner in town. Today, she is still known as ``the woman who lit up Milford.'' Mrs. Frederick and her husband have been married for 58 years. The couple's five children and three grandchildren keep them very busy. When asked what she likes to do with her free time, Mrs. Frederick says her main interest is helping people and that all people are important, whether they be young or old. I think those words are pretty good words to live by and I'd like to thank Mrs. Frederick for her contributions to the people of Milford. Her initiative and compassion for others is an example to us all that we should always be willing to help, no matter what our age.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to draw continued attention to our important narcotic interdiction efforts throughout the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, commonly referred to as the ``Transit Zone,'' and the aging condition of the aircraft and vessels in both the U.S. Customs Service and U.S. Coast Guard fleet inventories. Earlier this year, the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control held a hearing on the Transit Zone. Intelligence sources estimate that the annual cocaine flow through the six million square- mile Transit Zone is in excess of 500 metric tons. Non-commercial maritime conveyances account for more than 80 percent of this Transit Zone flow, and unfortunately, the estimated success rate for smugglers ``go-fast'' deliveries is close to 90 percent. The U.S. Coast Guard operates numerous ships and aircraft that are aging and now require excessive maintenance to keep them in operation. Because these assets lack current technology, they are extremely manpower intensive, and require constant maintenance, which detracts from readiness and increases life cycle costs. All of the Coast Guard's 210-foot and 378-foot ships are at least 30 years old, and the Coast Guard even operates 3 ``Mature class'' cutters, WWII-era vessels inherited from the U.S. Navy. The Coast Guard's fleet of medium and high endurance cutters is older than 37 of the world's 39 similar naval fleets, and the majority of major Coast Guard ships and aircraft will reach the end of their predicted service lives by the year 2008. The Customs Service operates a wide range of aircraft at 11 air branches and 10 air units throughout the country, as well as at 3 overseas forward operating locations (FOLs) and 2 sites in Mexico. The Customs Service has 142 aircraft and 196 vessels, and many are in need of modernization or replacement. The average age of their C-12 aircraft is 22 years old and all 16 of their UH-60 Blackhawks are ``A'' models (first production series) on loan from the U.S. Army. As their P-3 aircraft fleet has aged, numerous corrosion and cracking problems have been discovered. It is the P-3 aircraft that has become the backbone of our detection and monitoring system. But, the U.S. Customs Service Air and Maritime Interdiction (AMID) January 2001 Strategic Assessment reported, the level of aviation operations is insufficient to meet the current agency requirements of Presidential Decision Directive (PDD- 14), the National Drug Control Strategy, and Plan Colombia. While both services begin to feel the debilitating effects of these aging assets, demands for both the Customs Service and Coast Guard's unique services are simultaneously increasing. A doubling world population, the continued decline in marine fisheries, the end of the Cold War, the doubling of commercial passenger enplanements by 2009, the continuing scourge of illegal drugs and human smuggling, and the tripling of international commerce are all expected to increase the nation's reliance on these agencies. The Customs Service will continue to be on the front lines on trade and economic growth, border security, counter terrorism, narcotics interdiction, financial crimes and money laundering, pornography, and Internet cybercrime cases. The Coast Guard will continue as the lead federal agency in the maritime environment with respect to drugs, illegal immigration, and fisheries law enforcement. We are increasing our demands, we are expanding our expectations, but we are not investing in our capability. We cannot continue to live off our principal and expect to achieve results. The recent record maritime seizure of 13 tons of cocaine on a vessel in the Eastern Pacific only serves to highlight the significant Transit Zone threat and reinforces the urgent need for modernization of the U.S. Customs Service and the U.S. Coast Guard fleets. I urge my colleagues to continue to support our Nation's counterdrug efforts, including those in the Transit Zone and at our borders, and in support of these two important U.S. agencies.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise with determination to join Senators Akaka and Levin introducing legislation on an issue that should concern us all: the integrity of the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. I enclose editorials and op-ed commentaries, ranging from the New York Times to the Washington Times highlighting the needs for this law to be reborn so that it achieves its potential for public service. Unfortunately, it has become a Trojan horse that may well be creating more reprisal victims than it protects. The impact for taxpayers could be to increase silent observers who passively conceal fraud, waste and abuse. That is unacceptable. I was proud to be an original co-sponsor of this law when it was passed unanimously by Congress in 1989, and when it was unanimously strengthened in 1994. Both were largely passed to overturn a series of hostile decisions by administrative agencies and an activist court with a monopoly on the statute's judicial review, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The administrative agencies, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board, appear to have gotten the point. They have been operating largely within statutory boundaries. Despite the repeated unanimous congressional mandates, however, the Federal Circuit has stepped up its attacks on the Whistleblower Protection Act. Enough is enough. The legislation we are introducing today has four cornerstones, closing loopholes in the scope of WPA protection; restoring a realistic test for when reprisal protection is warranted; restoring the normal structure for judicial review; and codifying the anti-gag statute passed as an appropriations rider for the last 13 years. Each is summarized below. As part of 1994 amendments unanimously passed by Congress to strengthen the Act, the legislative history emphasized, ``[I]t also is not possible to further clarify the clear language in section 2302(b)(8) that protection for `any' whistleblowing disclosure truly means `any.' A protected disclosure may be made as part of an employee's job duties, may concern policy or individual misconduct, and may be oral or written and to any audience inside or outside the agency, without restriction to time, place, motive or content.'' Somehow the Federal Circuit did not hear our unanimous voice. Without commenting on numerous committee reports and floor statements emphasizing this cornerstone, it has been creating new loopholes at an accelerated pace. Its precedents have shrunk the scope of protected whistleblowing to exclude disclosures made as part of an employee's job duties, to a co-worker, boss, others up the chain of command, or even the suspected wrongdoer to check facts. Under these judicial loopholes, the law does not cover agency misconduct with the largest impact, policies that institutionalize illegality or waste and mismanagement. Last December it renewed a pre-WPA loophole that Congress has specifically outlawed. The court decreed that the law only covers the first person to place evidence of given misconduct on the record, excluding those who challenge long term abuses, witnesses whose testimony supports pioneer whistleblowers, or anyone who is not the Christopher Columbus for any given scandal. There is no legal basis for any of these loopholes. None of these loopholes came from Congress. In fact, all contradict express congressional intent. Since 1978, the point of Federal whistleblower protection has been to give agencies the first crack at cleaning their own houses. These loopholes force them to either remain silent, sacrifice their rights, or go behind the back of institutions and individuals if they want to preserve their rights when challenging perceived misconduct. They proceed at their own risk if they exercise their professional expertise to challenge problems on the job. They can only challenge anecdotal misconduct on a personal level, rather than institutionalized. Our legislation addresses the problem by codifying the congressional ``no exceptions'' definition for lawful, significant disclosures. The legislation also reaffirms the right of whistleblowers to disclose classified information about wrongdoing to Congress. National security secrecy must not cancel Congress' right to know about betrayals of the public trust. In a 1999 decision, the Federal Circuit functionally overturned the standard by which whistleblowers demonstrate their disclosures deserve protection: lawful disclosures which evidence a ``reasonable belief'' of specific misconduct. Congress did not change this standard in 1989 or 1994 for a simple reason: it has worked by setting a fair balance to protect responsible exercises of free speech. Ultimate proof of misconduct has never been a prerequisite for protection. Summarized in lay terms, ``reasonable belief'' has meant that if information would be accepted for the record of related litigation, government investigations or enforcement actions, it is illegal to fire the employee who bears witness by contributing that evidence. That realistic test no longer exists. In Lachance v. White, the Federal Circuit overturned the victory of an Air Force education specialist challenging a pork barrel program whose concerns were so valid that after an independent management review, the Air Force agreed and canceled the program. Unfortunately, local base officials held a grudge, reassigning Mr. White and stripping him of his duties. He appealed under the WPA and won before the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit, however, held that he did not demonstrated a ``reasonable belief'' and sent the case back. That raises questions on its face, since agencies seldom agree with whistleblowers. The court accomplished this result disingenuously. While endorsing the existing standard, it added another hurdle. It held that to have a reasonable belief, an employee must overcome the presumption that the government acts fairly, lawfully, properly and in good faith. They must do so by ``irrefragable'' proof. The dictionary defines ``irrefragable'' as ``uncontestable, incontrovertible, undeniable, or incapable of being overthrown.'' The bottom line is that, in the absence of a confession, there is no such thing as a reasonable belief. If there is no disagreement about alleged misconduct, there is no need for whistleblowers. The court even added a routine threat for employees asserting their rights. Although Congress has repeatedly warned that motives are irrelevant to assess protected speech, the court ordered the MSPB to conduct factfinding for anyone filing a whistleblower reprisal claim, to check if the employee had a conflict of interest for disclosing alleged misconduct in the first place. This means that while whistleblowers have almost no chance of prevailing, they are guaranteed to be placed under investigation for challenging harassment. Ironically, in 1994 Congress outlawed retaliatory investigations, which have now been institutionalized by the court. In the aftermath, whistleblower support groups like the Government Accountability Project must warn those seeking guidance that if they assert rights, they will be placed under investigation and any eventual legal ruling on the merits inevitably will conclude they deserve punishment and formally endorse the retaliation they suffered. The White case is a decisive reason for those who witness fraud, waste and abuse to remain silent, instead of speaking out. Profiles in Courage are the exception, rather than the rule. Our legislation ends the presumptions of ``irrefragable proof'' and protects any reasonable belief as demonstrated by credible evidence. This is the third time Congress has had to reenact a unanimous good government mandate thrown out by the Federal Circuit. This is also three strikes for the Federal Circuit's monopoly authority to interpret, and repeatedly veto, this law. It is time to end the broken record syndrome. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 contained normal ``all circuits'' court of appeals judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act. This was the same structure as all other employment anti-reprisal or anti-discrimination statutes. In 1982, the Federal Circuit was created, with a unique monopoly on appellate review of civil service, patent and copyright, and International Trade Commission decisions. Unfortunately, this experiment has failed. Our amendment restores the normal process of balanced review. Hopefully, that will restore normal respect for the legislative process. In 1988, I was proud to introduce an appropriations rider to the Treasury, Postal and General Government bill which has been referred to as the ``anti-gag statute.'' It has survived constitutional challenge through the Supreme Court, and been unanimously approved in each of the last 13 appropriations bills. This provision makes it illegal to enforce agency nondisclosure policies or agreements unless there is a specific, express addendum informing employees that the disclosure restrictions do not override their right to communicate with Congress under the Lloyd Lafollette Act or other good government laws such as the Whistleblower Protection Act. The provision originally was in response to a new, open-ended concept called ``classifiable.'' That term was defined as any information that ``could or should have been classified,'' or ``virtually anything,'' even if it were not market secret. This effectively ended anonymous whistleblowing disclosures, imposed blanket prior restraint, and legalized after-the-fact classification as a device to cover up fraud or misconduct. Since employees no longer were entitled to prior notice that information was secret, the only way they could act safely was a prior inquiry to the agency whether information was classified. That was a neat structure to lock in secrecy when its only purpose is to thwart congressional or public oversight. I am proud that the anti-gag statute has worked, and the strange concept of ``classifiable'' is history. After 13 years and over 6,000 individual congressional votes without dissent, it is time to institutionalize this merit system principle. It should be beyond debate that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. I want to recognize the efforts of those whose stamina defending freedom of speech has applied that principle in practice. Senator Levin has been my Senate partner from the beginning of legislative initiatives on this issue. His leadership has proved that whistleblower protection is not an issue reserved for conservatives or liberals, Democrats or Republicans. Like the First Amendment, whistleblower protection is a cornerstone right for Americans. Nongovernmental organizations have made significant contributions as well. The Government Accountability Project, a non-profit, non-partisan whistleblower support group, has been a relentless watchdog of merit system whistleblower rights since they were created by statute in 1978. Thanks to GAP, my staff has not been taken by surprise as judicial activism threatened this good government law. Kris Kolesnick, formerly with my staff and now with the National Whistleblower Center, worked on the original legislation while on my staff and continues to work in partnership with me. In the decade since Congress unanimously passed this law, it has been a Taxpayer Protection Act. My office has been privileged to work with public servants who exposed indefensible waste and mismanagement at the Pentagon, as well as indefensible abuses of power at the Department of Justice. I keep learning that whistleblowers proceed at their own risk when defending the public. In case after case I have seen the proof of Admiral Rickover's insight that unlike God, the bureaucracy does not forgive. Nor does it forget. It also has been confirmed repeatedly that whistleblowers must prove their commitment to stamina and persistence in order to make a difference against ingrained fraud, waste and abuse. There should be no question about Congress', or this Senator's commitment. Congress was serious when it passed the Whistleblower Protection Act unanimously. It is not mere window dressing. As long as whistleblowers are defending the public, we must defend credible free speech rights for genuine whistleblowers. Those who have something to hide, the champions of secrecy, cannot outlast or defeat the right to know both for Congress, law enforcement agencies and the taxpayers. Every time judicial or bureaucratic activists attempt to kill this law, we must revive it in stronger terms. Congress can not watch passively as this law is gutted, or tolerate gaping holes in the shield protecting public servants. The taxpayers are on the other side of the shield, with the whistleblowers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the October 13, 1999 article from The Washington Times and the May 1, 1999 article from The New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise with determination to join Senators Akaka and Levin introducing legislation on an issue that should concern us all: the integrity of the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. I enclose editorials and op-ed commentaries, ranging from the New York Times to the Washington Times highlighting the needs for this law to be reborn so that it achieves its potential for public service. Unfortunately, it has become a Trojan horse that may well be creating more reprisal victims than it protects. The impact for taxpayers could be to increase silent observers who passively conceal fraud, waste and abuse. That is unacceptable. I was proud to be an original co-sponsor of this law when it was passed unanimously by Congress in 1989, and when it was unanimously strengthened in 1994. Both were largely passed to overturn a series of hostile decisions by administrative agencies and an activist court with a monopoly on the statute's judicial review, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The administrative agencies, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board, appear to have gotten the point. They have been operating largely within statutory boundaries. Despite the repeated unanimous congressional mandates, however, the Federal Circuit has stepped up its attacks on the Whistleblower Protection Act. Enough is enough. The legislation we are introducing today has four cornerstones, closing loopholes in the scope of WPA protection; restoring a realistic test for when reprisal protection is warranted; restoring the normal structure for judicial review; and codifying the anti-gag statute passed as an appropriations rider for the last 13 years. Each is summarized below. As part of 1994 amendments unanimously passed by Congress to strengthen the Act, the legislative history emphasized, ``[I]t also is not possible to further clarify the clear language in section 2302(b)(8) that protection for `any' whistleblowing disclosure truly means `any.' A protected disclosure may be made as part of an employee's job duties, may concern policy or individual misconduct, and may be oral or written and to any audience inside or outside the agency, without restriction to time, place, motive or content.'' Somehow the Federal Circuit did not hear our unanimous voice. Without commenting on numerous committee reports and floor statements emphasizing this cornerstone, it has been creating new loopholes at an accelerated pace. Its precedents have shrunk the scope of protected whistleblowing to exclude disclosures made as part of an employee's job duties, to a co-worker, boss, others up the chain of command, or even the suspected wrongdoer to check facts. Under these judicial loopholes, the law does not cover agency misconduct with the largest impact, policies that institutionalize illegality or waste and mismanagement. Last December it renewed a pre-WPA loophole that Congress has specifically outlawed. The court decreed that the law only covers the first person to place evidence of given misconduct on the record, excluding those who challenge long term abuses, witnesses whose testimony supports pioneer whistleblowers, or anyone who is not the Christopher Columbus for any given scandal. There is no legal basis for any of these loopholes. None of these loopholes came from Congress. In fact, all contradict express congressional intent. Since 1978, the point of Federal whistleblower protection has been to give agencies the first crack at cleaning their own houses. These loopholes force them to either remain silent, sacrifice their rights, or go behind the back of institutions and individuals if they want to preserve their rights when challenging perceived misconduct. They proceed at their own risk if they exercise their professional expertise to challenge problems on the job. They can only challenge anecdotal misconduct on a personal level, rather than institutionalized. Our legislation addresses the problem by codifying the congressional ``no exceptions'' definition for lawful, significant disclosures. The legislation also reaffirms the right of whistleblowers to disclose classified information about wrongdoing to Congress. National security secrecy must not cancel Congress' right to know about betrayals of the public trust. In a 1999 decision, the Federal Circuit functionally overturned the standard by which whistleblowers demonstrate their disclosures deserve protection: lawful disclosures which evidence a ``reasonable belief'' of specific misconduct. Congress did not change this standard in 1989 or 1994 for a simple reason: it has worked by setting a fair balance to protect responsible exercises of free speech. Ultimate proof of misconduct has never been a prerequisite for protection. Summarized in lay terms, ``reasonable belief'' has meant that if information would be accepted for the record of related litigation, government investigations or enforcement actions, it is illegal to fire the employee who bears witness by contributing that evidence. That realistic test no longer exists. In Lachance v. White, the Federal Circuit overturned the victory of an Air Force education specialist challenging a pork barrel program whose concerns were so valid that after an independent management review, the Air Force agreed and canceled the program. Unfortunately, local base officials held a grudge, reassigning Mr. White and stripping him of his duties. He appealed under the WPA and won before the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit, however, held that he did not demonstrated a ``reasonable belief'' and sent the case back. That raises questions on its face, since agencies seldom agree with whistleblowers. The court accomplished this result disingenuously. While endorsing the existing standard, it added another hurdle. It held that to have a reasonable belief, an employee must overcome the presumption that the government acts fairly, lawfully, properly and in good faith. They must do so by ``irrefragable'' proof. The dictionary defines ``irrefragable'' as ``uncontestable, incontrovertible, undeniable, or incapable of being overthrown.'' The bottom line is that, in the absence of a confession, there is no such thing as a reasonable belief. If there is no disagreement about alleged misconduct, there is no need for whistleblowers. The court even added a routine threat for employees asserting their rights. Although Congress has repeatedly warned that motives are irrelevant to assess protected speech, the court ordered the MSPB to conduct factfinding for anyone filing a whistleblower reprisal claim, to check if the employee had a conflict of interest for disclosing alleged misconduct in the first place. This means that while whistleblowers have almost no chance of prevailing, they are guaranteed to be placed under investigation for challenging harassment. Ironically, in 1994 Congress outlawed retaliatory investigations, which have now been institutionalized by the court. In the aftermath, whistleblower support groups like the Government Accountability Project must warn those seeking guidance that if they assert rights, they will be placed under investigation and any eventual legal ruling on the merits inevitably will conclude they deserve punishment and formally endorse the retaliation they suffered. The White case is a decisive reason for those who witness fraud, waste and abuse to remain silent, instead of speaking out. Profiles in Courage are the exception, rather than the rule. Our legislation ends the presumptions of ``irrefragable proof'' and protects any reasonable belief as demonstrated by credible evidence. This is the third time Congress has had to reenact a unanimous good government mandate thrown out by the Federal Circuit. This is also three strikes for the Federal Circuit's monopoly authority to interpret, and repeatedly veto, this law. It is time to end the broken record syndrome. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 contained normal ``all circuits'' court of appeals judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act. This was the same structure as all other employment anti-reprisal or anti-discrimination statutes. In 1982, the Federal Circuit was created, with a unique monopoly on appellate review of civil service, patent and copyright, and International Trade Commission decisions. Unfortunately, this experiment has failed. Our amendment restores the normal process of balanced review. Hopefully, that will restore normal respect for the legislative process. In 1988, I was proud to introduce an appropriations rider to the Treasury, Postal and General Government bill which has been referred to as the ``anti-gag statute.'' It has survived constitutional challenge through the Supreme Court, and been unanimously approved in each of the last 13 appropriations bills. This provision makes it illegal to enforce agency nondisclosure policies or agreements unless there is a specific, express addendum informing employees that the disclosure restrictions do not override their right to communicate with Congress under the Lloyd Lafollette Act or other good government laws such as the Whistleblower Protection Act. The provision originally was in response to a new, open-ended concept called ``classifiable.'' That term was defined as any information that ``could or should have been classified,'' or ``virtually anything,'' even if it were not market secret. This effectively ended anonymous whistleblowing disclosures, imposed blanket prior restraint, and legalized after-the-fact classification as a device to cover up fraud or misconduct. Since employees no longer were entitled to prior notice that information was secret, the only way they could act safely was a prior inquiry to the agency whether information was classified. That was a neat structure to lock in secrecy when its only purpose is to thwart congressional or public oversight. I am proud that the anti-gag statute has worked, and the strange concept of ``classifiable'' is history. After 13 years and over 6,000 individual congressional votes without dissent, it is time to institutionalize this merit system principle. It should be beyond debate that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. I want to recognize the efforts of those whose stamina defending freedom of speech has applied that principle in practice. Senator Levin has been my Senate partner from the beginning of legislative initiatives on this issue. His leadership has proved that whistleblower protection is not an issue reserved for conservatives or liberals, Democrats or Republicans. Like the First Amendment, whistleblower protection is a cornerstone right for Americans. Nongovernmental organizations have made significant contributions as well. The Government Accountability Project, a non-profit, non-partisan whistleblower support group, has been a relentless watchdog of merit system whistleblower rights since they were created by statute in 1978. Thanks to GAP, my staff has not been taken by surprise as judicial activism threatened this good government law. Kris Kolesnick, formerly with my staff and now with the National Whistleblower Center, worked on the original legislation while on my staff and continues to work in partnership with me. In the decade since Congress unanimously passed this law, it has been a Taxpayer Protection Act. My office has been privileged to work with public servants who exposed indefensible waste and mismanagement at the Pentagon, as well as indefensible abuses of power at the Department of Justice. I keep learning that whistleblowers proceed at their own risk when defending the public. In case after case I have seen the proof of Admiral Rickover's insight that unlike God, the bureaucracy does not forgive. Nor does it forget. It also has been confirmed repeatedly that whistleblowers must prove their commitment to stamina and persistence in order to make a difference against ingrained fraud, waste and abuse. There should be no question about Congress', or this Senator's commitment. Congress was serious when it passed the Whistleblower Protection Act unanimously. It is not mere window dressing. As long as whistleblowers are defending the public, we must defend credible free speech rights for genuine whistleblowers. Those who have something to hide, the champions of secrecy, cannot outlast or defeat the right to know both for Congress, law enforcement agencies and the taxpayers. Every time judicial or bureaucratic activists attempt to kill this law, we must revive it in stronger terms. Congress can not watch passively as this law is gutted, or tolerate gaping holes in the shield protecting public servants. The taxpayers are on the other side of the shield, with the whistleblowers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the October 13, 1999 article from The Washington Times and the May 1, 1999 article from The New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, I rise today to compliment the men and women of the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA. As chairman, I have watched these American heroes work day and night on the front lines of the struggle against international drug trafficking. DEA's mission is to identify, target, and dismantle the most powerful drug syndicates operating around the world that smuggle their poison into American communities. These syndicates are far more powerful and violent than any organized criminal groups that American law enforcement has yet encountered. Unlike traditional organized crime, these 21st century crooks operate globally with transnational networks to conduct illicit enterprises simultaneously in many different countries. The drug traffickers whom DEA faces pose nothing less than a foreign threat to the national security of the United States. International trafficking groups today have at their disposal the most sophisticated communications technology and their arsenal includes radar-equipped aircraft, advanced weaponry, and an army of workers who oversee the drug business from the source zones to the urban areas and rural locations within the United States. These drug traffickers reach even into my home State of Iowa, in America's heartland. Local, rural police and sheriffs departments must now deal with international organized crime. All of this modern technology and these vast resources enable the leaders of international criminal groups to build organizations that, together with their surrogates operating within the United States, reach into all parts of America. The leaders of these crime groups use their organizations to carry out the work of transporting drugs into the United States, and franchise others to distribute drugs, thereby allowing them to remain beyond the reach of American justice. Those involved in international drug trafficking often generate such tremendous profits that they are able to corrupt law enforcement, military and political officials overseas in order to create and retain a safe haven for themselves. DEA's focus on international trafficking organizations makes that agency a critical and effective weapon in countering this threat to our way of life, here and abroad. The threat posed by Colombian drug traffickers is particularly dire. The international drug syndicates headquartered in Colombia, and operating through Mexico and the Caribbean, control both the sources and the flow of many dangerous drugs into the United States. The vast majority of the cocaine entering the United States continues to come from the source countries of Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru. For the past two decades--up to recent years--criminal syndicates from Colombia ruled the drug trade with an iron fist, increasing their profit margin by controlling the entire continuum of the cocaine market. Their control ranged from the wholesale cocaine base production in Peru, Bolivia, and Colombia, to the cocaine hydrochloride, HCL, production and processing centers in Colombia, to the wholesale distribution of cocaine on the streets of the United States. In response to this threat, the DEA carries out cutting-edge, sophisticated investigations like Millennium and White Horse which have led to the dismantling of major portions of the most significant drug trafficking organizations operating not just out of Colombia, but throughout the world. DEA's accomplishments could take hours to review in detail, but let me mention just a few here today. In 1999, Operation Millennium successfully targeted major traffickers who had previously operated without fear of capture or prosecution in the United States, believing that only their low-level operatives were at risk. This enforcement operation effectively demonstrated that even the highest level traffickers based in foreign countries could not manage drug operations inside the United States with impunity. Operation Millennium was made possible by direct support from the governments of Colombia and Mexico, and underscore the importance of cooperation among international drug law enforcement agencies. In November 2000, DEA, FBI, and U.S. Customs culminated an 18 month investigation targeting a multi-ethnic, transnational MDMA, Ecstasy, and cocaine distribution organization, following up on enforcement action by Dutch police in the Netherlands. The investigation, known as Operation Red Tide, was a textbook example of the new multi-agency, multi-national law enforcement cooperation needed to thwart organized crime in the 21st Century. As a result of this cooperative effort, 1,096 pounds, 2.1 million tablets, of MDMA, the largest single seizure of the drug in history, were seized by U.S. Customs agents. The head of the organization, Tamer Adel Ibrahim, fled the U.S. after the seizure, but was quickly traced to Mexico and then to Europe by the multi-agency team. Ibrahim, along with others, were arrested and 1.2 million tablets of MDMA were seized by the Dutch National Police. Cases similar to Operation Red Tide exemplify the unprecedented level of international law enforcement cooperation in effect today. The investigation targeting the transnational MDMA and cocaine trafficking syndicate was a cooperative effort by the U.S. law enforcement agencies, as well as the Dutch National Police/Regional Team South, Mexico's Fiscalia Especializad Para La Atencion De Delitos, FEADS, the Israeli National Police, the German Federal Police, Bundes Kriminal Amt, the Cologne, Germany Police Department, the Duissburg Germany Police Department, the Italian National Police and the French National Police. This investigation is extremely important because MDMA, Ecstasy, is a new threat with a potential to cause great damage, especially to America's youth. Operation Red Tide has ensured that a large volume of ecstasy that would have made it into the hands of our youth never hit the streets. It has sent a strong message to the traffickers that the United States and DEA is leading a global response to the drug threat. Last December, the DEA, again together with U.S. Customs and the FBI, completed Operation Impunity II, resulting in 82 arrests and the seizure of 5,266 kilograms of cocaine, 9,708 pounds of marijuana, and approximately $10,890,295 in U.S. currency. Impunity II follows earlier successes dating back to 1996 in Operation Limelight and Operation Impunity I--and was the result of the outstanding coordination between Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials and prosecutors across the country. Operation Impunity II was a multi-agency law enforcement program that targeted a wide ranging conspiracy to smuggle thousands of pounds of cocaine and marijuana from Mexico, across the southwest border into Texas, for distribution throughout the United States. The organization placed managers in the United States and retained the organizational command and control elements in Mexico. In addition to remnants from the Carrillo-Fuentes organization, U.S. agents learned that some members of the Mexican Gulf Cartel had also become associated with the organization, including Osiel Cardenas-Guillen, allegedly a former Gulf Cartel lieutenant. You may remember that Cardenas-Guillen is also charged with assault on an FBI agent and a DEA agent in Matamoros, Mexico, on November 9, 1999. Clearly this operation sends a clear signal that if traffickers threaten or harm a federal agent, they will not get away with impunity. In January of this year, Operation White Horse targeted a large scale heroin trafficking organization, directed by Wilson Salazar-Maldonado, which was responsible for sending multi-kilogram quantities of heroin from Colombia to the Northeastern United States via Aruba. The investigation was conducted jointly by the Colombian National Police, DEA Bogota, Curacao, Philadelphia and New York, and the Special Operations Division. This investigation resulted in 96 arrests, as well as the seizure of multi-kilograms quantities of heroin and cocaine, weapons and U.S. currency. DEA remains committed to its primary goal of targeting and arresting the most significant drug traffickers in the world today. Their successes include not only the operations I just mentioned, but also the historic destruction of the Cali and Medellin Cartels. DEA meets the ultimate test of bringing to justice the drug lords who control their vast empires of crime, which bring misery to so many nations. As we sustain a relentless assault against drug traffickers, we must insist that these drug lords be arrested, tried and convicted, and sentenced in their own countries to prison terms commensurate with their crimes, or, as appropriate, extradited to the United States to face justice in U.S. courts. I hope other Senators will join with me in acknowledging the fine work by DEA, and in supporting their efforts in the future.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Sunshine in the Courtroom Act.'' This bill will give federal judges the discretion to allow for the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting and televising of federal court proceedings. The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act will help the public become better informed about the judicial process. Moreover, this bill will help produce a healthier judiciary. Increased public scrutiny will bring about greater accountability and help judges to do a better job. The sun needs to shine in on the federal courts. Allowing cameras in the federal courtrooms is consistent with our Founding Fathers' intent that trials be held in front of as many people as choose to attend. I believe that the First Amendment requires that court proceedings be open to the public and, by extension, the news media. The Constitution and Supreme Court both support the fundamental principles and aims of this bill. The Supreme Court has said, ``what transpires in the courtroom is public property.'' Clearly, the American values of openness and education are served by using electronic media in federal courtrooms. There are many benefits and no substantial detrimental effects to allowing greater public access to the inner workings of our federal courts. Fifteen states conducted studies aimed specifically at the educational benefits derived from camera access to courtrooms. They all determined that camera coverage contributed to greater public understanding of the judicial system. Moreover, the widespread use in state court proceedings show that still and video cameras can be used without any problems, and that procedural discipline is preserved. According to the National Center for State Courts, forty-eight states allow modern audio-visual coverage of court proceedings under a variety of rules and conditions. My own State of Iowa has operated successfully in this open manner for 20 years. Further, at the federal level, the Federal Judicial Center conducted a pilot program in 1994 which studied the effect of cameras in a select number of federal courts. That study found ``small or no effects of camera presence on participants in the proceeding, courtroom decorum, or the administration of justice.'' I would like to note that even the Supreme Court has recognized that there is a serious public interest in the open airing of important court cases. At the urging of Senator Schumer and myself, Chief Justice Rehnquist allowed the delayed audio broadcasting of the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the 2000 presidential election dispute. The Supreme Court's response to our request was an historic, major step in the right direction. Since then, other courts have followed suit, such as the live audio broadcast of oral arguments before the D.C. Circuit in the Microsoft antitrust case and the televising of appellate proceedings before the Ninth Circuit in the Napster copyright case. The public wants to see what is happening in these important judicial proceedings, and the benefits are significant in terms of public knowledge and discussion. We've introduced the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act with a well- founded confidence based on the experience of the states as well as state and federal studies. However, in order to be certain of the safety and integrity of our judicial system, we have included a 3-year sunset provision allowing a reasonable amount of time to determine how the process is working before making the provisions of the bill permanent. It is also important to note that the bill simply gives judges the discretion to use cameras in the courtroom. It does not require judges to have cameras in their courtroom if they do not want them. The bill also protects the anonymity of non-party witnesses by giving them the right to have their voices and images obscured during testimony. So, the bill does not require cameras, but allows judges to exercise their discretion to permit cameras in appropriate cases. The bill protects witnesses and does not compromise safety. The bill preserves the integrity of the judicial system. The bill is based on the experience of the states and the federal courts. And the bill's net result will be greater openness and accountability of the nation's federal courts. The best way to maintain confidence in our judicial system, where the federal judiciary holds tremendous power, is to let the sun shine in by opening up the federal courtrooms to public view through broadcasting. And allowing cameras in the courtroom will bring the judiciary into the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Sunshine in the Courtroom Act.'' This bill will give federal judges the discretion to allow for the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting and televising of federal court proceedings. The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act will help the public become better informed about the judicial process. Moreover, this bill will help produce a healthier judiciary. Increased public scrutiny will bring about greater accountability and help judges to do a better job. The sun needs to shine in on the federal courts. Allowing cameras in the federal courtrooms is consistent with our Founding Fathers' intent that trials be held in front of as many people as choose to attend. I believe that the First Amendment requires that court proceedings be open to the public and, by extension, the news media. The Constitution and Supreme Court both support the fundamental principles and aims of this bill. The Supreme Court has said, ``what transpires in the courtroom is public property.'' Clearly, the American values of openness and education are served by using electronic media in federal courtrooms. There are many benefits and no substantial detrimental effects to allowing greater public access to the inner workings of our federal courts. Fifteen states conducted studies aimed specifically at the educational benefits derived from camera access to courtrooms. They all determined that camera coverage contributed to greater public understanding of the judicial system. Moreover, the widespread use in state court proceedings show that still and video cameras can be used without any problems, and that procedural discipline is preserved. According to the National Center for State Courts, forty-eight states allow modern audio-visual coverage of court proceedings under a variety of rules and conditions. My own State of Iowa has operated successfully in this open manner for 20 years. Further, at the federal level, the Federal Judicial Center conducted a pilot program in 1994 which studied the effect of cameras in a select number of federal courts. That study found ``small or no effects of camera presence on participants in the proceeding, courtroom decorum, or the administration of justice.'' I would like to note that even the Supreme Court has recognized that there is a serious public interest in the open airing of important court cases. At the urging of Senator Schumer and myself, Chief Justice Rehnquist allowed the delayed audio broadcasting of the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the 2000 presidential election dispute. The Supreme Court's response to our request was an historic, major step in the right direction. Since then, other courts have followed suit, such as the live audio broadcast of oral arguments before the D.C. Circuit in the Microsoft antitrust case and the televising of appellate proceedings before the Ninth Circuit in the Napster copyright case. The public wants to see what is happening in these important judicial proceedings, and the benefits are significant in terms of public knowledge and discussion. We've introduced the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act with a well- founded confidence based on the experience of the states as well as state and federal studies. However, in order to be certain of the safety and integrity of our judicial system, we have included a 3-year sunset provision allowing a reasonable amount of time to determine how the process is working before making the provisions of the bill permanent. It is also important to note that the bill simply gives judges the discretion to use cameras in the courtroom. It does not require judges to have cameras in their courtroom if they do not want them. The bill also protects the anonymity of non-party witnesses by giving them the right to have their voices and images obscured during testimony. So, the bill does not require cameras, but allows judges to exercise their discretion to permit cameras in appropriate cases. The bill protects witnesses and does not compromise safety. The bill preserves the integrity of the judicial system. The bill is based on the experience of the states and the federal courts. And the bill's net result will be greater openness and accountability of the nation's federal courts. The best way to maintain confidence in our judicial system, where the federal judiciary holds tremendous power, is to let the sun shine in by opening up the federal courtrooms to public view through broadcasting. And allowing cameras in the courtroom will bring the judiciary into the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thought we were going to let the Senator from Minnesota speak.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1836, the tax reconciliation bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there will be a lot of speeches about the substance of the legislation and, obviously, I think it is a good piece of legislation or I would not have negotiated the final product. I think it is good for the economy. It is surely good for working men and women of America to have tax relief. It is surely good for fiscal discipline within our Government as we make sure that the Government must squeeze every dollar of value out of every penny that we spend. I think leaving this money in the pockets of the taxpayers rather than sending it to Washington will help us with our fiscal discipline. Most importantly, I think the process by which this product is before us is much more significant than the product because the control of the Senate hangs in the balance--even over the next several years, it seems to me, regardless of the exact numbers. The Senate is known for its bipartisanship to pass legislation. I hope that the work Senator Baucus and I have done in a bipartisan way to bring this product of tax relief to the American taxpayers and to this body for it to become law serves as an example not only for the entire Senate but also will continue the tradition of bipartisanship that we have had in our committee. I hope that we do, in fact, look upon the Senate as being very closely divided for a long period of time, and for whoever is in control, it is very important that we continue this bipartisanship in the Senate. I yield the floor, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we have now come to the end of our many days of deliberation over the tax cut bill. This will probably be my final bill during my brief tenure as chairman of the Finance Committee, and so, I want to make a few closing remarks about the bill before us this morning. This bill represents an enormous bipartisan effort. This bill has had bipartisan participation from its very creation, all the way through to its completion in conference with the House. The bill before us today was drafted in concert with Senators Baucus, Breaux, and many others on the Finance Committee from both sides of the aisle--all of whom I consulted with personally. I thank you all for your insights and guidance in designing this bill. I would also like to thank Chairman Bill Thomas of the House Ways and Means Committee. His responsiveness to the difficulties we face here in the Senate was refreshing and very constructive. But most of all, we should thank President Bush. It was his leadership and vision that led us to this historic moment--as we prepare to enact the largest individual income tax cut in 20 years. We took as a starting point President Bush's efforts to provide income tax relief to all Americans. This legislation includes the four main elements of President Bush's goals for providing tax relief to working families: the bill before us today provides an across the board tax cut and creates the new low 10 percent rate requested by the President; the bill reforms and repeals the death tax, which the President wanted; the bill provides marriage penalty relief, which the President and Congress have sought for a very long time; the bill also includes a $1,000 refundable child credit, which was specifically requested by the President. Sixteen million more children will be helped by our bill. In addition, the bill contains an extensive education incentives package, pension and IRA enhancements, and AMT relief. This tax bill is a victory for Republicans. It is a victory for Democrats. It's a victory for the President, but most importantly, it is a victory for the taxpayers of the United States. Now for some of the details. First, the conference bill reduces marginal rates across-the-board and applies the President's 10 percent rate retroactively to January 1st of this year. The Treasury Department will issue rebate checks to American taxpayers to remit any excess taxes that have been withheld on their 10 percent earnings earlier this year. The 28 percent, 31 percent and 36 percent rates will be reduced by 3 points over the next several years. The first one point rate reduction will take effect on July 1--just a month from now. The rebate checks and immediate rate reductions will provide a stimulus that our sluggish economy very much needs. In addition, the 39.6 percent top marginal rate will drop to 35 percent. While we don't go as far as the President in reducing the top rates--and I would add we didn't go as far as I would like--we also address the hidden marginal rate increases caused by current law that denies deductions for personal exemptions and itemized deductions. Those laws will be repealed, thus eliminating these hidden marginal rate increases and removing another complexity from the Code. We provide marriage penalty relief for married families--for families where both spouses work and where only one spouse works. The President's desire to expand the child credit to $1000 is met in this bill. And in response to the concerns of Senators Snowe, Lincoln, Breaux, Jeffords, and Kerry the child credit was expanded to help millions of children whose working parents do not pay income tax. And lastly, we heard America's voices and have reformed and repealed the death tax. Starting January 1 of next year, the unified credit is increased to $1 million and the top rate is cut to 50 percent. The burden of the death tax is reduced and will be eliminated--as called for by President Bush. This effort is due to the work of many Senators but I would particularly note the efforts of Senator Kyl and Senator Lincoln. In addition, the bill contains many provisions targeted for education. Elements include expansion of prepaid tuition programs to help families pay for college--long advocated by Senators Collins, McConnell, and Sessions. In addition, we provide college tuition deduction thanks to Senators Torricelli, Snowe, and Jeffords, as well as an expansion of the education savings accounts--in honor of Senator Coverdell--thanks to the work of Senator Torricelli and the Majority Leader. In addition to President Bush's proposals for tax relief for working families, we also included the Grassley-Baucus pension reform legislation which probably would not have made it in the bill without the longtime support of Senators Hatch and Jeffords. In addition to maintaining the basic framework of the bipartisan agreement, we were able to retain some of the important amendments added to the RELIEF Act on the Senate floor. The key amendments we kept were keeping with the major focus of the bill--providing benefits for working families. First among these is that the adoption credit is extended and expanded effective 2003. I have been a long advocate on this matter, but I want to recognize the critical work of Senators Landrieu and Craig in this matter. Further, we were able to retain the goal of giving employers greater tax incentives to provide child care to their employees--long advocated by Senator Kohl. In addition, we kept the policy advocated by Senator Jeffords of expanding the dependent care tax credit--which assists families facing the difficulties of providing care for children and spouses with special needs. We include Senator Bingaman's amendment offered in committee that allows the IRS to provide greater relief to families who are in a disaster area. Finally, we retained the Senate amendment championed by Senator Fitzgerald that excludes from income payments made to survivors of the Holocaust. America is a society of opportunity. Over 60 percent of all families will at one time or another be in the top fifth of income in this country. This bill will provide the American taxpayer with the greatest amount of tax relief in a generation. And they deserve it. It is wrong that in a time of surpluses we are still imposing a record tax burden on workers. With passage of this bill, struggling families will have more money to make ends meet; parents and students will be able to more easily afford the costs of a college education. A successful business woman will be able to expand and hire more people; a father finally getting a good paycheck after years of work will be able to better provide for his aging mother; and, a farmer can pass on the family farm without his children having to sell half the land to pay estate taxes. The examples are endless of the great benefits that we realize when we give tax relief to working families. I would remind my colleagues again that the hallmark of this bill is that relief for low-income families comes first. The marginal rate drop to 10 percent is immediate, and the effects of that reduction will be placed in taxpayer's hands this year. The child credit expansion to low-income families is immediate. Over 16 million more children will be helped by the provisions of this bill. In addition, the numbers show that once again, our bipartisan bill makes our tax system even more progressive. That is, at the end of the day upper income families would be paying a greater share of taxes than lower income taxpayers. I also have a message for those who claim this bill benefits the rich at the expense of the poor, and that it will jeopardize Medicare and Social Security. Those things just aren't true. This is a bipartisan bill. We'll spend at least $3.5 trillion on Medicare in the next 10 years. That's more than 2.5 times the size of the tax cut. We wouldn't put forward bipartisan legislation that jeopardizes Medicare and Social Security. So I hope Americans will rest easy that this tax bill doesn't shortchange one group of Americans at the expense of others. My message to taxpayers is this: Substantial tax relief is on the way. The Government will ease its grip on your wallet. You deserve this. Now, the last time the Senate considered this bill, it turned the bill over and over and around and around. Some Members tried to huff and puff and blow this bill down. That didn't work. Like a house made of bricks, our bipartisan bill is standing strong. But apiece of legislation is only as good as the last vote it survives. Today, we are faced with a crucial vote. Let me say it again: This is a bipartisan bill. I have described this legislation to remind Senators of the balanced approach that took place in crafting this bill; to highlight the fact that it reflects the views and priorities of a wide range of members on both sides of the aisle. I can assure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that if Senator Baucus had not been present at the creation of this bill--it would have been a very different piece of legislation. It is because of his efforts that there are many elements in this bill that members on the other side of the aisle can enthusiastically support. I am tired of reading in the press the constant carping of Senator Baucus' efforts to draft a bipartisan bill. It seems that while many are happy to talk about bipartisanship that can't stand to see bipartisanship practiced. We saw that happen the last time we brought this bill to the floor of the Senate. I urge my colleagues to stop the petty partisanship and put the American taxpayers first. Now it is time for the Senate to send this much needed tax relief to the President for signature. America is waiting, and America is watching. Let's send them this historic tax relief package today. Mr. President, I have 3 minutes, and I yield 1 minute to Senator Hatch.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield the first 2 of my 5 minutes to the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm.