Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to draw my colleagues' attention to the critical role our National Guard plays in efforts to rid our country of illegal drugs--a role that I believe should be expanded. The Guard operates several regional support schools around the nation, that facilitate valuable training for state and local law enforcement agencies. These schools are dedicated to teaching counterdrug-related skills to State and local law enforcement agencies and community based organizations. These counterdrug schools provide training to thousands of people each year that would otherwise not be able to receive it for a lack of resources. Operating under the authority of Title 32, United States Code, Section 112, the National Guard actively supports local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies and community based antidrug coalitions. As a part of this effort, the National Guard currently operates four schools that provide unique and invaluable assistance to those individuals at the forefront of our country's drug interdiction and demand reduction effort. These schools, located in Pennsylvania, Florida, Mississippi, and California, have proved their effectiveness in developing training and educational opportunities for local law enforcement officials--opportunities that would not otherwise exist. I note, however, that the vagaries in funding and geographical distribution of the existing schools have limited the effectiveness of these training programs. Our national drug problem is not a coastal problem, but affects all communities throughout the United States. I believe we need a more centrally located school to provide more accessible training in the Midwest and Northwest United States. In addition to the need for a fifth school in the upper-Midwest, we should also consider the current budgeting process for these schools. I believe a critical element in achieving quality training for law enforcement and being cost-effective at the same time must include a unified National Guard Counterdrug schools budget which fully funds the schools. Rather than being pieced together from the National Guard State budgets, Defense Department support, and Congressional line items, there should be a discrete item for these National Guard schools so Congress can have a clearer idea of the mission, the funding, and the accomplishments of these schools. Today, joining with my colleagues Senator Harkin and Senator Cochran, I am introducing legislation that will accomplish these objectives. This legislation clarifies the authorities of the National Guard Bureau to operate the four existing counterdrug schools. In addition, it would establish one additional school in Iowa to serve law enforcement agencies in the Midwest and Northwest United States. It will establish a separate line of funding for these counterdrug schools with an authorized funding level of $25 million for FY 2002. I want to take a moment to say something additional about the fifth school (Midwest Counterdrug Training Center, MCTC, to be established at Camp Dodge, located in Johnston, Iowa. Designed to fulfill a need for training in the Midwest and Northwest United States, it would be primarily supported by the Iowa National Guard, and serve as a training center for State and local law enforcement agencies in the Midwest and Northwest United States. Camp Dodge has much of the physical infrastructure necessary for the school, including housing and being the hub for a state-wide fiber optic network that allows for live, two way video and audio communication between Camp Dodge and every National Guard Armory and school district in the State of Iowa. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation, which I now send to the desk and ask that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am sending to the desk a bill for myself and Mr. DeWine to reform the current certification requirement for international drug control. As many members know, I have been a strong supporter of the drug certification process. I remain one. Of late, however, we have seen a lot of criticism of the process. Some of this has been by foreign countries and some here at home. Rather than answer all of these criticisms, I want to take a few moments to address what I believe have been misconceptions about the process. The first point I want to make is to remind my colleagues why Congress required certification in the first place. It arose because we believed that doing something here and overseas about the drug problem was in the national interests. The public agreed. I might add the public has not changed its mind. I don't believe that we ought to do so either. Most of the drugs available in the United States today come from overseas. They are produced overseas and smuggled to this country. That production is illegal. It is illegal in international law. It is illegal in the domestic laws of all the countries where these drugs are produced. It is illegal to smuggle the drugs. Here and abroad. The consequences of that smuggling--illegal drugs on our streets--are felt in homes and neighborhoods and schools all across this country. I continue to believe that it is in our interest to stop that production and flow. I own that we have an obligation to expect countries to abide by international law, bilateral agreements, and their own legal codes on drug production and trafficking. I believe that it is not just a quirk of U.S. interest to expect that we and others commit ourselves to stopping this illegal production and trade. In fact, I believe that we have a moral obligation to stop these activities. In order to do that, we need a clear, knowable process that holds ourselves and other countries to account for what we do to help stop this production and trade. Drug dealers do more harm to this country every year than all the terrorists put together have done in the past 10 years. Let me ask my colleagues, would you seriously offer to ignore or suspend the requirements that we have put in place that hold others to an international standard of conduct on stopping terrorism? Human rights? I think not. But that is one of the things being proposed for how to deal with international drug certification. I do not propose that we be any less committed to stopping illegal drugs internationally than we are when other important concerns are involved, and I ask my colleagues to support this view. I also would point out that this is no time to carve out special exemptions for any one country or region. We remain collectively responsible to act responsibly on this issue. That means every one of us. My second point on why we have the certification process is to note congressional intent. We passed the law 15 years ago to make stopping illegal drug production and transit a national priority. I do not believe that most members of Congress nor the majority of the U.S. public believe that it is time to change that. Drug trafficking and threats from major criminal organizations have grown worse not better. Our third largest foreign assistance program is to help Colombia deal with problems arising from trafficking and the thugs that promote it. Is it really time to say we no longer regard international drug trafficking as a national priority? I happen to believe that it is not. I would also note that we have had repeated demonstrations in the past several years of the effectiveness of certification in securing improved international cooperation. Administration officials have testified repeatedly as to its effectiveness and utility. It has also given us needed leverage in specific cases to make important progress. I for one am unwilling to undo a process that has paid such dividends. On the other hand, I am aware that the certification process has raised a number of concerns here and abroad in the past few years. While I do not think that the solution in response to these concerns is to suspend the process, I do have a suggestion that I believe will help. Hence the bill Senator DeWine and I send to the desk. Briefly what this proposal does is to simplify the current methodology. At present, we have a three-step certification process: the President can certify a country as fully cooperating, decertify a country as failing to cooperate, or decertify with a national interest waiver. This aspect of the process has been the main source of contention. It has led some to believe that it forces the Administration to be less than candid about some countries that might be on the list. It has also complicated our relations with important allies. What this proposal does is to go to a decertification only standard. This is similar to what we do with terrorism and human rights. In other words, the default position is that all countries are doing the right thing on meeting international drug control standards. The only countries singled out for consideration are those whose actions are clearly outside a reasonable assessment of accountability as defined in current law. Our bill simplifies a complex process and focuses attention on the bad guys. It gives the President more flexibility. In doing so, we keep accountability. We keep a useful process in place. We avoid unnecessary complications with friends and allies doing the responsible thing. We maintain necessary reporting on international efforts. We keep our eye on a critical issue. The provision also sunsets in three years unless Congress acts to keep it. That means we have a chance to drive it around the block, kick the tires, and see if it's a lemon or not. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill and I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on the occasion of the 50th Birthday of the Girl Scouts of Conestoga Council, I would like to congratulate this fine organization. Conestoga Council was formed in 1951 and presently serves nearly 4,000 girls in a twelve-county area in Northeast Iowa. The Council delivers traditional Girl Scout programming through troop meetings and activities, camp opportunities and educational learning. In addition, the Council supports eight in-school out reach programs for girls of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds. The Council has broadened its delivery approach by partnering with the Winnebago Council of Boy Scouts of America to offer day camp activities and experiences through Camp Quest to hundreds of children who would not otherwise have the opportunity to participate. The Council continues to fulfill its mission of helping girls grow strong with the assistance of hundreds of volunteers throughout Eastern Iowa. Thousands of girls' lives have been touched and enriched through their experience with the Conestoga Council. Again, I would like to express my congratulations to the Girl Scouts of Conestoga Council for reaching this milestone and I wish them all the best as they continue to serve girls in Northeast Iowa.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to discuss legislation I'm offering today on behalf of myself and Senators Baucus, Brownback, Burns, Lugar, Roberts, Craig, Enzi, and Nelson from Nebraska this afternoon. It will assist millions of farmers across the nation. I've named the bill the Tax Empowerment and Relief for Farmers and Fishermen Act, or what I will refer to as TERFF. I'm a farmer, like my father was before me. I understand farming and how policy decisions from Washington impact hardworking farmers, like my son Robin. Before I ran for elected office and after I leave, God willing, I'll still be farming. There is little that I feel more strongly about than providing the agriculture community potential to survive and thrive. As far as I'm concerned, agriculture is my ``terf'' and as long as I'm in this town, I'll do all I can to serve my friends and neighbors in the agriculture community. This legislation has already been adopted by the Senate multiple times. In the midst of a serious downturn in the agriculture economy, it seems to me we ought to be doing everything we can to help farmers, and this would provide significant assistance. For example, my agriculture tax package will include: The Farm, Fish, and Ranch Risk Management Accounts--these farmer saving accounts would allow farmers to contribute up to 20 percent of their income in an account, and deduct it in the same year. Farm accounts would be a very important risk management tool that will help farmers put away money when there's actual income, so that, in the bad times, there will be a safety net. This measure has strong bipartisan support and was actually sent to President Clinton, who vetoed it. Farmers who participate in the Conservation Reserve Program CRP, are unnecessarily struggling during tax season because of a recent case pushed by the IRS. The latest 6th Circuit court's ruling treats CRP payments as farm income subject to the additional self employment tax rate of 15 percent. Senator Brownback has taken the lead on fixing this problem. This unfair tax not only ignores the intent of Congress in creating the CRP, it discourages farmers from using environmentally pro-active measures. At a time when farmers are struggling to regain their footing economically and do the right thing environmentally--it's important that Congress support them by upholding it promise on CRP. Senator Lugar has led the effort to expand the current program where companies can donate to food banks, so that farmers and restaurants can also donate surplus food directly to needy food banks. This will be a win for the farmers and a big win for people who depend on food bank assistance. This was also part of the vetoed tax bill. When we passed income averaging for farmers a few years ago, we neglected to take into account the problem of running into the alternative minimum tax, which many farmers are facing now. My bill will fix this growing problem. My bill expands opportunities for beginning farmers who are in need of low interest rate loans for capital purchases of farmland and equipment. Current law permits state authorities to issue tax exempt bonds and to lend the proceeds from the sale of the bonds to beginning farmers and ranchers to finance the cost of acquiring land, buildings and equipment used in a farm or ranch operation. Unfortunately, aggie bonds are subjected to a volume cap and must compete with big industrial projects for bond allocation. Aggie bonds share few similarities to industrial revenue bonds and should not be subjected to the volume cap established for industrial revenue bonds. Insufficient allocation of funding due to the volume cap limits the effectiveness of this program. We can't stand by and allow the next generation of farmers to lose an opportunity to participate in farming because of competition with industry for reduced interest loan rates. Recently the IRS determined that some cooperatives should be exposed to a regular corporate tax due to the fact that they are using organic value-added practices rather than manufactured value-added practices. This is unfair, and needs to be fixed. And of course my package wouldn't be complete without a provision leveling the playing field for ethanol producers. The Small Ethanol Producer Credit will allow small cooperative producers of ethanol to be able to receive the same tax benefits as large companies. This provision provides cooperatives the ability to elect to pass through small ethanol producer credits to its patrons. The ``TERFF'' package will do more to reform taxes for the American farmer than any other measure in recent memory. I'll be urging my colleagues to strongly support this measure. It's a bill that should have the unanimous support it enjoyed last congress on the Senate floor. As sure as I'm chairman of the Finance Committee, I will push to have this package passed into law during the 107th Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of these three bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I announce the introduction of the Family Opportunity Act of 2001. I pledge my commitment to working with Senator Kennedy and others in a bi-partisan, bi-cameral way for the passage of the Family Opportunity Act this year. We have a common-sense bill. Our bill is pro-family because it keeps families together. It's pro-work because it lets parents work without losing their children's health care. It's pro-taxpayer because it lets people earn money and help pay their own way for Medicaid coverage. Why is this legislation so necessary? As a parent, your main objective in life is to provide for your child to the best of your ability. Our federal government takes this goal and turns it upside down for the parents of children with special health care needs. The government forces these parents to choose between family income and their children's health care. That's a terrible choice. Families have to remain in poverty just to keep Medicaid. Obviously this affects entire families, not just the child with the health care needs. The story of an Iowan family illustrates this point. Daniel, the 18-year-old son of Melissa Arnold, can't work part-time for fear of jeopardizing his brother's Medicaid coverage. I know of another family whose son was paralyzed after a diving accident. The family exhausted $1 million of private insurance. Then they had to pay $1,500 a day on their own just to keep their son alive. Yet another family has a 4-year-old son who functions at an infant's level. This little boy takes anti- seizure medication that costs about $150 every two weeks. His nutritional supplement is $10 a day. He'll always wear diapers. All of those costs come out of his parents' pocket. Most families just can't afford those costs. Why is Medicaid so desirable? It's critical to the well-being of children with multiple medical needs. Medicaid covers services that are difficult to find in private health plans. A child with a severe disability may need special medical equipment or physical therapy on a regular basis just in order to be able to eat. Our bill creates a state option to allow working parents who have a child with a disability to keep working and to still have access to Medicaid for their child. Parents would pay for Medicaid coverage on a sliding scale. No one would have to become impoverished or stay impoverished to secure Medicaid for a child. The legislation recognizes a universal truth. Everybody wants to use their talents to the fullest potential, and every parent wants to provide as much as possible for his or her children. The government shouldn't get in the way. I look forward to working with my colleagues for passage of the Family Opportunity Act this year.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I announce the introduction of the Family Opportunity Act of 2001. I pledge my commitment to working with Senator Kennedy and others in a bi-partisan, bi-cameral way for the passage of the Family Opportunity Act this year. We have a common-sense bill. Our bill is pro-family because it keeps families together. It's pro-work because it lets parents work without losing their children's health care. It's pro-taxpayer because it lets people earn money and help pay their own way for Medicaid coverage. Why is this legislation so necessary? As a parent, your main objective in life is to provide for your child to the best of your ability. Our federal government takes this goal and turns it upside down for the parents of children with special health care needs. The government forces these parents to choose between family income and their children's health care. That's a terrible choice. Families have to remain in poverty just to keep Medicaid. Obviously this affects entire families, not just the child with the health care needs. The story of an Iowan family illustrates this point. Daniel, the 18-year-old son of Melissa Arnold, can't work part-time for fear of jeopardizing his brother's Medicaid coverage. I know of another family whose son was paralyzed after a diving accident. The family exhausted $1 million of private insurance. Then they had to pay $1,500 a day on their own just to keep their son alive. Yet another family has a 4-year-old son who functions at an infant's level. This little boy takes anti- seizure medication that costs about $150 every two weeks. His nutritional supplement is $10 a day. He'll always wear diapers. All of those costs come out of his parents' pocket. Most families just can't afford those costs. Why is Medicaid so desirable? It's critical to the well-being of children with multiple medical needs. Medicaid covers services that are difficult to find in private health plans. A child with a severe disability may need special medical equipment or physical therapy on a regular basis just in order to be able to eat. Our bill creates a state option to allow working parents who have a child with a disability to keep working and to still have access to Medicaid for their child. Parents would pay for Medicaid coverage on a sliding scale. No one would have to become impoverished or stay impoverished to secure Medicaid for a child. The legislation recognizes a universal truth. Everybody wants to use their talents to the fullest potential, and every parent wants to provide as much as possible for his or her children. The government shouldn't get in the way. I look forward to working with my colleagues for passage of the Family Opportunity Act this year.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to discuss legislation I'm offering today on behalf of myself and Senators Baucus, Brownback, Burns, Lugar, Roberts, Craig, Enzi, and Nelson from Nebraska this afternoon. It will assist millions of farmers across the nation. I've named the bill the Tax Empowerment and Relief for Farmers and Fishermen Act, or what I will refer to as TERFF. I'm a farmer, like my father was before me. I understand farming and how policy decisions from Washington impact hardworking farmers, like my son Robin. Before I ran for elected office and after I leave, God willing, I'll still be farming. There is little that I feel more strongly about than providing the agriculture community potential to survive and thrive. As far as I'm concerned, agriculture is my ``terf'' and as long as I'm in this town, I'll do all I can to serve my friends and neighbors in the agriculture community. This legislation has already been adopted by the Senate multiple times. In the midst of a serious downturn in the agriculture economy, it seems to me we ought to be doing everything we can to help farmers, and this would provide significant assistance. For example, my agriculture tax package will include: The Farm, Fish, and Ranch Risk Management Accounts--these farmer saving accounts would allow farmers to contribute up to 20 percent of their income in an account, and deduct it in the same year. Farm accounts would be a very important risk management tool that will help farmers put away money when there's actual income, so that, in the bad times, there will be a safety net. This measure has strong bipartisan support and was actually sent to President Clinton, who vetoed it. Farmers who participate in the Conservation Reserve Program CRP, are unnecessarily struggling during tax season because of a recent case pushed by the IRS. The latest 6th Circuit court's ruling treats CRP payments as farm income subject to the additional self employment tax rate of 15 percent. Senator Brownback has taken the lead on fixing this problem. This unfair tax not only ignores the intent of Congress in creating the CRP, it discourages farmers from using environmentally pro-active measures. At a time when farmers are struggling to regain their footing economically and do the right thing environmentally--it's important that Congress support them by upholding it promise on CRP. Senator Lugar has led the effort to expand the current program where companies can donate to food banks, so that farmers and restaurants can also donate surplus food directly to needy food banks. This will be a win for the farmers and a big win for people who depend on food bank assistance. This was also part of the vetoed tax bill. When we passed income averaging for farmers a few years ago, we neglected to take into account the problem of running into the alternative minimum tax, which many farmers are facing now. My bill will fix this growing problem. My bill expands opportunities for beginning farmers who are in need of low interest rate loans for capital purchases of farmland and equipment. Current law permits state authorities to issue tax exempt bonds and to lend the proceeds from the sale of the bonds to beginning farmers and ranchers to finance the cost of acquiring land, buildings and equipment used in a farm or ranch operation. Unfortunately, aggie bonds are subjected to a volume cap and must compete with big industrial projects for bond allocation. Aggie bonds share few similarities to industrial revenue bonds and should not be subjected to the volume cap established for industrial revenue bonds. Insufficient allocation of funding due to the volume cap limits the effectiveness of this program. We can't stand by and allow the next generation of farmers to lose an opportunity to participate in farming because of competition with industry for reduced interest loan rates. Recently the IRS determined that some cooperatives should be exposed to a regular corporate tax due to the fact that they are using organic value-added practices rather than manufactured value-added practices. This is unfair, and needs to be fixed. And of course my package wouldn't be complete without a provision leveling the playing field for ethanol producers. The Small Ethanol Producer Credit will allow small cooperative producers of ethanol to be able to receive the same tax benefits as large companies. This provision provides cooperatives the ability to elect to pass through small ethanol producer credits to its patrons. The ``TERFF'' package will do more to reform taxes for the American farmer than any other measure in recent memory. I'll be urging my colleagues to strongly support this measure. It's a bill that should have the unanimous support it enjoyed last congress on the Senate floor. As sure as I'm chairman of the Finance Committee, I will push to have this package passed into law during the 107th Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of these three bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I was hoping Thursday afternoon to be on the floor with Senator Byrd as he spoke about some issues dealing with the Defense Department. I ask my fellow Senators and staff of the Senators who are interested in defense matters to read Senator Byrd's speech on page 1236 of the Congressional Record of February 8. I will comment, not as comprehensively as he did, about some of the problems at the Department of Defense. I will read one paragraph from his speech. It is related to a lot of work that I have been doing in the Senate for quite a few years on the lack of accountability in cost management and inventory management and just generally the condition of the books in the Defense Department, which is also the basis for my remarks today. I quote from Senator Byrd's speech: So here's the question I have. If the Department of Defense does not know what it has in terms of assets and liabilities, how on Earth can it know what it needs? We are in the position where the new President of the United States is making a judgment of how much money he should suggest over the next few years to increase defense expenditures. The President this week is highlighting that. I think the President needs to be complimented. He has put off for a while until the new Secretary of Defense can do a study of Defense Department needs and missions before making the specific judgment of how much money should be spent. This is somewhat different than what President Reagan did in 1981 when the judgment was that just spending more money on defense automatically brings you more and a better defense. Obviously, at that time more money needed to be spent, but exactly how much needed to be spent was not so clear. A lot more money was appropriated, creating a situation where an Assistant Secretary of Defense at that particular time said there was so much money allocated that we piled the moneybags on the steps of the Pentagon and said to them: Defense contractors, come and get it. I think we look back and know some of that money probably was not wisely spent, although we do give credit to President Reagan for spending more, and in a sense challenging the Soviets in a way so they had to call a halt to the cold war. That saved the taxpayers a lot of money in the long term. Now we have a President who has time to think about what should be done and is giving it the proper consideration. So I want to start out by complimenting President Bush for his approach to ramping up defense expenditures at a time in our history when there is a general consensus among both political parties that more ought to be spent. Since we are going to spend more, it ought to be spent very wisely. President Bush deserves the thanks of the American taxpayers for being very careful. He has stated there is a need for an immediate increase in pay and housing for military people to enhance their morale and keep dedicated people who are already trained, give them a financial incentive for staying in instead of getting out and going into the private sector--he is moving ahead on those few things. But on the larger question of increasing expenditures, particularly for enhanced weaponry and new weapons, he is waiting until there is a study completed. I thank him for doing that. Regardless, as Senator Byrd said, we ought to have a set of books, an accounting system, at the Defense Department that is not only such that we know what the situation is, how much we have in inventory, how much is actually being paid for a weapons system, but when we have a bill to pay, we ought to know what we got for that bill. What goods and services were received? The point is, we do not now have that information. That was the point of Senator Byrd's question. It is the point of my question today. But my questioning is on ongoing points I have been raising with the Defense Department now for a period of probably 4 or 5 years or longer. I am truly honored to have an opportunity to speak on the very same subject that Senator Byrd spoke on last Thursday. I am hoping the Senator from West Virginia and this Senator from Iowa can team up this year in a search for a solution. As many of my colleagues know, I have been wrestling with this problem for a number of years, and, candidly, without a whole lot of success in getting the Defense Department to change their bad accounting, and not having a basis, then, on which to ask for further increases into the future. I have come here to the floor of the Senate and spoken about this many times. I have raised these same concerns during hearings before the Budget Committee. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight, I have investigated this problem and held hearings on it. I have offered legislation on it and some of that legislation has been incorporated, thanks to Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens, the ranking people on the Appropriations Committee, in various Department of Defense appropriations bills. The General Accounting Office and the Pentagon's inspector general have issued report after report after report exposing these same problems. In fact, their investigative work has been the basis for some of my remarks in the past. So here we have, again, last week, this issue being raised by the Senator from West Virginia. I am glad to have somebody of Senator Byrd's stature asking pertinent questions because then people pay attention. People listen up. That also applies to my listening and reading what the Senator from West Virginia had to say last week. Senator Byrd started his inquiry maybe months and years ago, for all I know, but it came to my attention when he was participating in a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 11, the hearing on the nomination of Mr. Rumsfeld for Secretary of Defense. My gut sense tells me Senator Byrd's question sent shock waves through the Pentagon. When I read about it in the newspaper the next day, I asked my staff to get the transcript and fax it to me because I was home in my State of Iowa. I studied the exchange between Senator Byrd and Secretary designate Rumsfeld very carefully. What I heard was music to my ears. In a nutshell, Senator Byrd was talking about the Pentagon's continuing inability to earn a clean opinion under the Chief Financial Officer's Act audit. That act was passed in 1990. So we have been down this road, now, for 10 years. I hope in most departments of Government we have accomplished something. It does not seem as if we have in the case of the Pentagon. Under the Chief Financial Officer's Act, the Pentagon must prepare financial statements each year. Those are then subjected to an independent audit by the General Accounting Office and the Inspector General. Senator Byrd, on January 11, questioned Mr. Rumsfeld about the results of the latest Chief Financial Officer's audit by the inspector general. Senator Byrd stated at that time, and I quote from the transcripts: DOD has yet to receive a clean audit opinion in its financial statements. Senator Byrd went on to quote from a recent article in the Los Angeles Times about the Pentagon accounting mess. Again, I quote from the transcript of a statement of Senator Byrd: The Pentagon's books are in such utter disarray that no one knows what America's military actually owns or spends. As Senator Byrd knows, this quote contains a very powerful message. This is the message that I glean from that quote: The Pentagon does not know how much it spends. It does not know if it gets what it orders in goods and services. And the Pentagon, additionally, does not have a handle on its inventory. If the Pentagon does not know what it owns and spends, then how does the Pentagon know if it needs more money? We, as Senators, presume already that the Pentagon needs more money--because there is kind of a bipartisan agreement to that, and President Bush won an election with that as one of his key points. We need to know more, and a sound accounting system is the basis for that judgment. Of course, that is the logic that was the foundation of Senator Byrd's next question to Mr. Rumsfeld. I will quote again from January 11: I seriously question an increase in the Pentagon's budget in the face of the department's recent [inspector general] report. How can we seriously consider a $50 billion increase in the Defense Department budget when the [Department of Defense's] own auditors--when DOD's own auditors--say the department cannot account for $2.3 trillion in transactions in 1 year alone. I agree with Senator Byrd's logic 100 percent. Ramping up the Pentagon budget when the books are a mess is highly questionable at best. To some it might seem crazy. And, of course, as I said about President Bush, and I compliment him for it, he appears to be reacting cautiously to pressure to pump up the defense budget, at least to do it now. He will do it in his own deliberate way, and hopefully with the adequate information to make a wise decision of how much the increase should be. I am encouraged by front-page stories in the New York Times on January 31, 2001, and again on February 5. These reports clearly indicate there would be no decision on increases: . . . until the Pentagon has completed a top-to-bottom review of its long-term needs. I think this was reiterated by the President yesterday in his message to our men and women in uniform when he was down at Fort Stewart. So this sounds good to me. I only hope the review the President is asking for includes a searching examination on the need to clean up the accounting books. This brings me to the bottom line, Senator Byrd's very last question on January 11: What do you plan to do about this, Mr. Rumsfeld? This is where the rubber meets the road. What do we do? What does the Secretary of Defense do, because he is in the driver's seat on this, to clean up the books? As I said a moment ago, I have been working on this problem for a long time and I am not happy with the Pentagon's response today, even though I am happy with the response of people such as Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd to help us get some language in appropriations bills to bring some changes in this behavior. I think the Pentagon has a negative attitude about fixing the problem. The bureaucrats in the Pentagon say that this is the way it has always been. And it ain't going to change--at least not in our lifetime. It's just too hard to do. The former CFO at the Pentagon, Mr. John Hamre, compared it to trying to change a tire on a car that was going 100 miles per hour. Well, I just can't buy that. That is not acceptable to me. This reminds me of the football team that loses one game after another. If I were the coach, I might say: Hey, it's time to go back to basics--like blocking and tackling drills every day. I think the Pentagon needs to do the same thing--go back to basics-- like accounting 101. I will be the first to admit that I lack a full and complete understanding of the true magnitude of this problem. Bookkeeping is a complicated and arcane field. And it's very boring. So it does not command much attention around here. But over the years, I have learned one important lesson about government bookkeeping. Bookkeeping is the key to controlling the money, and making sure that the taxpayers money is well spent. Bookkeeping is the key to CFO compliance. If the books of account are accurate and complete, it's easy to follow the money trail. That makes it hard to steal the money. By contrast, if bookkeeping is sloppy--as at the Pentagon today, then there is no money trail. That means financial accounts are vulnerable to theft and abuse. And that is exactly where the IG and GAO say that the Pentagon is today. Every one of their reports shows that bureaucrats at the Pentagon fail to perform routine bookkeeping functions day in and day out. The IG and GAO reports show that financial transactions are not recorded in the Pentagon's books of account as they occur--promptly and accurately. They show that some payments are deliberately posted to the wrong accounts. Sometimes transactions are not recorded in the books for months or even years and sometimes never. They show that the Pentagon regularly makes underpayments, overpayments, duplicate payments, erroneous payments, and even fraudulent payments. And most of the time, there is no follow up effort to correct the mistakes. These reports show that DOD has no effective capability for tracking the quantity, value, and locations of assets and inventory. Double-entry bookkeeping is needed for that, but double-entry bookkeeping is a non-starter at the Pentagon. It doesn't exist. In sum, Mr. President, these reports show that DOD has lost control of the money at the transaction level. With no control at the transaction level, it is physically impossible to roll up all the numbers into a top-line financial statement that can stand up to scrutiny and, most importantly, audit. Sloppy accounting generates billions of dollars in unreconciled mismatches between accounting, inventory, and disbursing records. Bureaucrats at the Pentagon regularly try to close the gap with ``plug'' figures, but the IG is not fooled by that trick. Billions and billions of dollars of unreconciled mismatches make it impossible to audit the books. As a result, each year the Pentagon gets a failing grade on its annual financial statements required by law. Each year, the IG issues a ``disclaimer of opinion'' because the books don't balance. This brings me back to where I started. Senator Byrd shined a bright beam of light on this very problem at Mr. Rumfeld's hearing. I thank him from the bottom of my heart. By asking a few simple questions, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia has stirred up a hornets nest. I am hoping that his interest will encourage the new leadership in the Pentagon to move in the right direction. I hope the new leadership will help the bureaucrats find some old time religion. What I am hoping is that we can find a way to convert this inertia into a long-term solution. But Mr. Rumsfeld has to find the will to do it. If the will is there, the way will be found. When I talk about going back to basic accounting 101 stuff, I am not suggesting that DOD break out old-fashioned ledger books. Today, bookkeeping and inventory control is done electronically, using highly integrated computer systems. Large companies like Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. are famous for doing it with ease. Wal-Mart has a transaction-driven system. It is updated instantaneously when a transaction occurs at a cash register anywhere in the system. Why can't the Pentagon do it? I made an all-out effort to fix it two years ago. With the help and support of the Budget and Armed Services Committees, I crafted what I considered to be a legislative remedy. Those provisions are embodied in Sections 933 and 1007 of the FY2000 defense authorization act--Public Law 106-65. I thought my legislative remedy would move the Department of Defense towards a clean audit, and that they would get an OK under the Chief Financial Officers Act from the inspector general and the General Accounting Office within 2 years. That was the point of my amendment. Well, guess what. We are two years down the road, and the clean opinion is nowhere in sight. And there is nothing coming down the pike or on the distant horizon that tells me that we will get there any time soon. DOD simply does not have the tools in place to get the job done. So I am hoping that the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from West Virginia can put their heads together and find a solution. I am hoping we can work together to craft a more successful approach. For starters, I have a recommendation to make to my friend from West Virginia. In the near future, I would expect Secretary Rumsfeld to nominate a person to be his Under Secretary for financial management--the Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer. This is his CFO. This is the person responsible for cleaning up the books and bringing the Pentagon into compliance with the CFO Act. I would like for us to sit down with this individual immediately after nomination--and long before confirmation. I would like us to ask the same question that Senator Byrd asked Mr. Rumsfeld: Mr. Secretary, what do you plan to do about this? First, I would expect this person to make a firm commitment to financial reform and to Chief Financial Officer's Act compliance. Second, I would not expect a final solution on the spot. However, prior to confirmation, I would expect this individual to provide us with a general framework and a timetable for reform. When can we expect to see a clean audit opinion? I will want the nominee to provide a satisfactory answer to that question. I hope the Senator from West Virginia will think that is a good thing for us to ask the next CFO of DOD. As the new chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I am deeply troubled by the Pentagon's negative--I don't care--attitude towards bookkeeping. I see good bookkeeping as a constitutional responsibility of every department of Government. Taking cash out of the pockets of hard- working Americans and appropriating to an agency that fails to control it is just not acceptable. That must change. Now, in my new position on the Finance Committee, the Senator from Iowa is responsible for legislation that authorizes the Government to reach deep into every citizen's pocket to get this money. I want to be certain that money is spent wisely, No. 1. And No. 2, I want to be sure that there is an audit trail on that money for all of us to see. That audit trail, that accounting system, that information in that accounting system on past expenditures is a very necessary basis for President Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld to make a decision of how much more the Defense Department budget should be ramped up. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his willingness to work on this issue. Trying to solve the bookkeeping problem at the Pentagon, earning a clean audit opinion, would restore accountability to bookkeeping at the Pentagon. This is a worthy cause. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this morning, and a lot of times during this debate over the next 4 or 5 months on tax legislation, we will hear a lot of economic arguments. I don't want to detract from those economic arguments as not being good arguments, but I think they are tailored to fit the pattern of people who have a political philosophy that believes more money running through the Federal budget, and through the Federal Treasury, as a percent of our gross domestic product is a better thing to do. They believe that a political decision made by Senators and Congressmen and a President on the distribution of goods and services within our country is better than leaving the money in the pockets of the men and women who are working in America to pay those taxes to decide how that money should be spent. We may not talk about it enough, but our philosophy for those of us who are fighting for tax relief for every taxpayer in America is that we believe there is more economic good done for America--and creating jobs in America and having a better life in America--if the money does not come through the Federal Treasury; or at least if less of it comes through the Federal Treasury and more is spent and invested by individual working men and women, entrepreneurs, and people who create jobs; or even if the money is spent by consumers. We believe that by having the marketplace and willing buyers and sellers make that determination of how the money should be divided creates more jobs, and turns over many more times in the economy than if the money comes through the Federal Treasury, and there is a political decision on how it should be distributed. Those are honest political and philosophical differences between our political parties. They are honest differences, but one has great faith in government to make decisions; the other one, mine, has great faith in individuals to make decisions. My philosophy will create more jobs. Since government does not create wealth, government distributes wealth or expends wealth, there aren't as many jobs created in the process. When the government actually creates a job, it is a job that consumes taxpayers' money, not creating wealth. These economic arguments are very good, but I feel more comfortable applying a little basic common sense to the whole argument of a tax cut; a little common sense to offset a lot of Washington nonsense. It is common sense that we have a tax surplus. We haven't had a tax surplus except in the last 4 or 5 years. Before that, I have to admit, Congress was very fiscally irresponsible with budget deficits. We had some tax surplus in the Social Security account, and we still have it, but it was meant to cover up irresponsible spending on the other side. That is behind us now that we have had a new Congress for the last 6 years, going on 7. We have not only budget surpluses, but surpluses beyond budget surpluses; those are tax surpluses. It has reached a point, because of automatic bracket creep, where people earn more and they are put in higher brackets. That money is coming in at historically high levels of taxation. Automatic bracket creep comes because people get put in a higher bracket and there isn't enough reduction in the tax brackets through the inflationary adjustment to offset that. Consequently, we have automatic tax increases on people without a vote of Congress. As a result of bracket creep as well as other enacted tax increases, taxes are now at 20.6 percent of gross domestic product, whereas over a 50-year period of time it was somewhere between 18.5 and 19.5. Historically, the economy has adjusted itself to that level of taxes. I think the people have accepted it as a reasonable rate of taxation. But they don't accept this historical high of 20.6 percent. That is why we are having the demand for tax relief for every taxpayer. Common sense dictates if we are going to keep this level of taxation up, that it is going to be burning holes in the pockets of Senators, Congressmen, and even Presidents to get spent. Those expenditures are generally on a continuing basis and an obligation always on the Federal Treasury. We want to discourage the level of expenditures growing as it did over the last 3 years, an average of 6 percent, twice the rate of inflation; or last year, 11.9 percent, three times the rate of inflation. That is not sustainable because taxes aren't coming in at that level. Even if they were coming in at that level, we would not want to have the level of expenditures that high because sometime there will be a downturn in the economy, and when that income goes down, expenditures don't go down to adjust to the income of the Federal Treasury. Common sense dictates we have to take some money out of Washington, DC, and leave it in the pockets of the taxpayers of America so we aren't the overtaxed nation that we are, that we are more where the historical level of taxation has been for 50 years. Now is the time to do that, to make up for the real bracket creep we have had, these automatic tax increases we have had, where we have reached the point where the average taxpayer is spending more on food, clothing, and shelter than they are spending on taxes. We will give tax relief to working men and women, to taxpayers in America, because of this high level of taxation, because we don't want money burned up in Washington, DC. We want to keep the money out of Washington, DC, leaving it in the taxpayers' pockets. There is 50 years of common sense behind that because that has been the level of taxation, 18 to 19 percent of the gross national product. We need to understand the taxpayers trust themselves with the money more than they trust the Internal Revenue Service. We will hear the tax relief that I am talking about is labeled a risky scheme. The only scheme is Washington's insatiable appetite for more and more of the working men and women's hard-earned tax dollars. There is a threat, we are told, that we can't continue to pay down the national debt. We can continue to pay down the national debt. We will continue to pay down the national debt. We are going to continue to pay down the national debt until we get to that point where Chairman Greenspan has advised that you can't pay down any more national debt because there is about $1 trillion of the national debt that is held by individuals who want the security of the Federal Treasury for their savings. They have bought 30- year Treasury bonds, and about $1 trillion of those are not callable. In about 6 or 7 years, we are going to reach the point where there is money coming into the Federal Treasury, that if these bonds are not callable, you don't pay down the national debt anymore, you start having the Federal Government invest in the stock market, buying other bonds, buying other stock, or at the very least, as the law requires now, to invest in federally insured financial institutions and then have an inordinate political impact upon the economy when that enormous transfer of billions and billions of dollars is put into the private banking system. That caution is not urged by Senator Grassley. That caution is urged by Chairman Greenspan. I assure people we are going to continue to pay down on the national debt. Taxes are so high we have reached the point where a two-wage- earner family, particularly if they are middle-income or below, one- wage earner is working to put food on the table and a roof over the head and just to provide for the family; the other one is working to pay for the Washington bureaucracy. That isn't how a family gets ahead. For a family with a $50,000-a-year income--this will probably be a two-wage-earner family; it wouldn't have to be but it could be--but for a $50,000 income family of four, their taxes now are about $4,000, on average. Under the President's proposal they drop down to $2,000. Consequently, that will leave in the pockets of those working men and women income for them to decide on their own how that money can be better used, whether it is saved for college education, pay more down on credit card debt, pay more down on the house mortgage. They may want to spend it, but that family making a determination of how to spend it is going to do more good for the entire U.S. economy than anything else. We have also been urged this morning: Don't get locked into a tax cut--this is where the trigger mechanism comes in--and that maybe we ought to have automatic increases in taxes for 4 or 5 years down the road in case something unpredictable happens. We do not need to worry about that. Common sense tells me that it is easier for Congress to increase taxes than to decrease taxes. We do not have to have an automatic trigger. It is not good for the economy to have it anyway because working men and women are going to perform according to the predictability of the Tax Code, and we should make sure it is predictable. My time is up. I assure my colleagues, we do not have to worry about triggers because we have only had two tax decreases in 20 years, but we have had Congress vote tax increases in 1982, 1984, 1986, 1990, and the biggest tax increase in the history of the country under President Clinton in 1993. So we do not need an automatic trigger. If we need to increase taxes, Congress can do it, and common sense tells me that we will do it. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume up to 15 minutes. I may not use all 15 minutes, if there are other speakers waiting to come to the floor. I have been asked by the manager of this bill to accommodate Senator Durbin by adding 11 minutes at the end of the time of morning business for Senator Durbin, and in the process of my doing that for Senator Thomas, I need to apologize to the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, because she asked to do the same thing. I guess we weren't at that point so accommodating because I said I would accommodate her at 3 o'clock this afternoon. I apologize to Senator Landrieu.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise for a very special purpose relating to the work of the Senate Finance Committee and the aspect of our work that deals with international trade and the high caliber of staff who have been on the International Trade Subcommittee over a long period of time. But I take special note of one of our staff people, our chief trade counsel, Grant Aldonas. He is right here. He is going to soon be leaving the position that he has with our committee. It is going to be a loss for our committee, and particularly for me as a new chairman. It is going to be a tremendous loss because people of his caliber who are so successful in the private sector and are willing to come back into public service are few and far between. He is one who has done that. He has done it for 3\1/2\ years as the Finance Committee's top trade lawyer. He served Senator Roth before me with the greatest of professionalism and diligence; he has done a very good job. Grant has left his mark on some of the Senate's most significant trade policy initiatives--the passage of the Trade and Development Act of 2000, and the passage of the bill that has been on everybody's mind over the last 3 or 4 years giving permanent normal trade relations status to the great country of China. This was chief among all the work that he did for that period of time on the Senate Finance Committee. I think I can speak for members of the Senate Finance Committee on both sides of the aisle. They have come to rely upon Grant's skill and judgment. Even though he is very skillful, judgment is the greatest asset that he has when dealing with the policies of international trade, not only from the domestic standpoint but from the international standpoint. Judgment with good common sense is very important. I have already referred to his success in the private sector. That is because he is a good lawyer. He is also a good public servant and just a plain good person. I wish you, Grant, and your wife Pam all the best in your new life beyond the Hill. Thank you very much for your services. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Breaux and others, to introduce a bill to repeal the telephone excise tax--the Help Eliminate the Levy on Locution Act known as the HELLO Act. The telephone excise tax is a tax that is outdated, unfair, and complex for both consumers to understand and for the phone companies to administer. It cannot be justified on any tax policy grounds. Mr. President, the federal government has had the American consumer on ``hold'' for too long when it comes to this tax. The telephone excise tax has been around for over 102 years. In fact, it was first imposed in 1898--just 22 years after the telephone itself was invented. So quickly was it imposed that it almost seems that Uncle Sam was there to collect it before Alexander Graham Bell could put down the receiver from the first call. In fact, the tax is so old that Bell himself would have paid it! This tax on talking--as it is known--currently stands at 3 percent. Today, about 94 percent of all American families have telephone service. This means that virtually every family in the United States must tack an additional 3 percent on to their monthly phone bill. The federal tax applies to local phone service; it applies to long distance service; and it even applies in some cases to the extra amounts paid for state and local taxes. It is estimated that this tax costs the American public more than $5 billion per year. The telephone excise tax is a classic story of a tax that has been severed from its original justifications, but lives on solely to collect money. In truth, the Federal phone tax has had more legislative lives than a cat. When the tax was originally imposed, Teddy Roosevelt was leading the Rough Riders up San Juan Hill. At that time, it was billed as a luxury tax, as only a small portion of the American public even had telephones. The tax was repealed in the early 20th century, but then was reinstated at the beginning of World War I. It was repealed and reinstated a few more times until 1941, when it was made permanent to raise money for World War II. In the mid-60s, Congress scheduled the elimination of the phone tax, which had reached levels of 10 and 25 percent. But once again, the demands of war intervened, as the elimination of the tax was delayed to help pay for Vietnam. In 1973, the phone tax began to phase-out, but one year before it was about to be eliminated, it rose up yet again--this time justified by the rationale of deficit reduction--and has remained with us ever since. This tax is a perfect example of why we must stop needlessly collecting the taxpayer's money--it does not pass any of the traditional criteria used for evaluating tax policy. First, this phone tax is outmoded. Once upon a time, it could have been argued that telephone service was a luxury item and that only the rich would be affected. As we all know, there is nothing further from the truth today. Second, the federal phone tax is unfair. Because this tax is a flat 3 percent, it applies disproportionately to low and middle income people. For example, studies show that an American family making less than $50,000 per year spends at least 2 percent of its income on telephone service. A family earning less than $10,000 per year spendings over 9 percent of its income on telephone service. Imposing a tax on those families for a service that is a necessity in a modern society is simply not fair. Third, the federal phone tax is complex. Once upon a time, phone service was simple--there was one company who provided it. It was an easy tax to administer. Now, however, phone service is intertwined with data services and Internet access, and it brings about a whole new set of complexities. For instance, a common way to provide high speed Internet access is through a digital subscriber line. This line allows a user to have simultaneous access to the Internet and to telephone communications. How should it be taxed? Should the tax be apportioned? Should the whole line be tax free? And what will we do when cable, wireless, and satellite companies provide voice and data communications over the same system? The burdensome complexity of today will only become more difficult tomorrow. As these questions are answered, we run the risk of distorting the market by favoring certain technologies. There are already numerous exceptions and carve-outs to the phone tax. For instance, private communications services are exempt from the tax. That allows large, sophisticated companies to establish communications networks and avoid paying any federal phone tax. It goes without saying that American families do not have that same option. Speaking of complexity, let me ask if anyone has taken a look at their most recent phone bill. It is a labyrinth of taxes and fees piled one on top of another. We may not be able to figure out what all the fees are for; but we do know that they add a big chunk to our phone bill. According to a recent study, the mean tax rate across the country on telecommunications is slightly over 18 percent. That is about a 6 percent rise in the last 10 years. I can't control the state and local taxes that have been imposed, but I can do my part with respect to the federal taxes. I seek to remove this burden from the citizens of my state--and all Americans across the country. As members of Congress, we need to make sure that our tax policies do not stifle that economic expansion. We should not adhere to policies that are a relic from a different time. In today's economy, the arguments for repeal are even stronger. Mr. President, it is time to end the federal phone tax. For too long while America has been listening to a dial tone, Washington has been hearing a dollar tone. This tax is outmoded. Why are we taxing a poor family's phone with a tax that was originally meant for luxury items. Mr. President, it is time we hung up the phone tax once and for all. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its repeal, and help all Americans to say ``Hello.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Breaux and others, to introduce a bill to repeal the telephone excise tax--the Help Eliminate the Levy on Locution Act known as the HELLO Act. The telephone excise tax is a tax that is outdated, unfair, and complex for both consumers to understand and for the phone companies to administer. It cannot be justified on any tax policy grounds. Mr. President, the federal government has had the American consumer on ``hold'' for too long when it comes to this tax. The telephone excise tax has been around for over 102 years. In fact, it was first imposed in 1898--just 22 years after the telephone itself was invented. So quickly was it imposed that it almost seems that Uncle Sam was there to collect it before Alexander Graham Bell could put down the receiver from the first call. In fact, the tax is so old that Bell himself would have paid it! This tax on talking--as it is known--currently stands at 3 percent. Today, about 94 percent of all American families have telephone service. This means that virtually every family in the United States must tack an additional 3 percent on to their monthly phone bill. The federal tax applies to local phone service; it applies to long distance service; and it even applies in some cases to the extra amounts paid for state and local taxes. It is estimated that this tax costs the American public more than $5 billion per year. The telephone excise tax is a classic story of a tax that has been severed from its original justifications, but lives on solely to collect money. In truth, the Federal phone tax has had more legislative lives than a cat. When the tax was originally imposed, Teddy Roosevelt was leading the Rough Riders up San Juan Hill. At that time, it was billed as a luxury tax, as only a small portion of the American public even had telephones. The tax was repealed in the early 20th century, but then was reinstated at the beginning of World War I. It was repealed and reinstated a few more times until 1941, when it was made permanent to raise money for World War II. In the mid-60s, Congress scheduled the elimination of the phone tax, which had reached levels of 10 and 25 percent. But once again, the demands of war intervened, as the elimination of the tax was delayed to help pay for Vietnam. In 1973, the phone tax began to phase-out, but one year before it was about to be eliminated, it rose up yet again--this time justified by the rationale of deficit reduction--and has remained with us ever since. This tax is a perfect example of why we must stop needlessly collecting the taxpayer's money--it does not pass any of the traditional criteria used for evaluating tax policy. First, this phone tax is outmoded. Once upon a time, it could have been argued that telephone service was a luxury item and that only the rich would be affected. As we all know, there is nothing further from the truth today. Second, the federal phone tax is unfair. Because this tax is a flat 3 percent, it applies disproportionately to low and middle income people. For example, studies show that an American family making less than $50,000 per year spends at least 2 percent of its income on telephone service. A family earning less than $10,000 per year spendings over 9 percent of its income on telephone service. Imposing a tax on those families for a service that is a necessity in a modern society is simply not fair. Third, the federal phone tax is complex. Once upon a time, phone service was simple--there was one company who provided it. It was an easy tax to administer. Now, however, phone service is intertwined with data services and Internet access, and it brings about a whole new set of complexities. For instance, a common way to provide high speed Internet access is through a digital subscriber line. This line allows a user to have simultaneous access to the Internet and to telephone communications. How should it be taxed? Should the tax be apportioned? Should the whole line be tax free? And what will we do when cable, wireless, and satellite companies provide voice and data communications over the same system? The burdensome complexity of today will only become more difficult tomorrow. As these questions are answered, we run the risk of distorting the market by favoring certain technologies. There are already numerous exceptions and carve-outs to the phone tax. For instance, private communications services are exempt from the tax. That allows large, sophisticated companies to establish communications networks and avoid paying any federal phone tax. It goes without saying that American families do not have that same option. Speaking of complexity, let me ask if anyone has taken a look at their most recent phone bill. It is a labyrinth of taxes and fees piled one on top of another. We may not be able to figure out what all the fees are for; but we do know that they add a big chunk to our phone bill. According to a recent study, the mean tax rate across the country on telecommunications is slightly over 18 percent. That is about a 6 percent rise in the last 10 years. I can't control the state and local taxes that have been imposed, but I can do my part with respect to the federal taxes. I seek to remove this burden from the citizens of my state--and all Americans across the country. As members of Congress, we need to make sure that our tax policies do not stifle that economic expansion. We should not adhere to policies that are a relic from a different time. In today's economy, the arguments for repeal are even stronger. Mr. President, it is time to end the federal phone tax. For too long while America has been listening to a dial tone, Washington has been hearing a dollar tone. This tax is outmoded. Why are we taxing a poor family's phone with a tax that was originally meant for luxury items. Mr. President, it is time we hung up the phone tax once and for all. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its repeal, and help all Americans to say ``Hello.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I want to speak about an important issue for the taxpayers of this country. The government's strongest and most effective tool against fraud is called the False Claims Act. In recent years, the False Claims Act has been under attack from industries targeted by the government's anti-fraud efforts. Since 1986, when Congress passed amendments that I sponsored to toughen the law than $4 billion has been recovered through the False Claims Act. Hundreds of billions more in fraud have been saved through the deterrent effect that this law has upon those who would betray the public's interest. In addition to the recovery of money and the deterrent effect of this law, the False Claims Act is important for another, perhaps, more important reason. The fact is that the False Claims Act is being used, day after day, by prosecutors to maintain the integrity of countless federal programs funded by American taxpayers. For example, the False Claims Act is being used in the health care industry to ensure that nursing home residents receive quality care. Included in the anti-fraud arsenal of the False Claims Act is a provision called qui tam. Qui tam is a concept that dates back to feudal times. It allows private citizens who know of fraud against the taxpayers to bring a lawsuit against the perpetrators. In other words, the citizen acts as a partner with the government. As an incentive, the citizen shares in any monetary recovery to the U.S. Treasury. Over the decades, the False Claims Act, and especially the qui tam provisions, proved to be effective, both in catching and deterring fraud. In considering the nomination of my former colleague, Senator John Ashcroft, for the position of Attorney General of the United States, I asked about his support for False Claims Act and the qui tam provisions. Senator Ashcroft's January 31, 2001 letter assures me that he will not support efforts to weaken the Act, and will support efforts to strengthen it. This pledge of support will ensure that the Department of Justice plays the critical and necessary role of targeting government waste and abuse. Senator Ashcroft assures that he will support ``vigorous enforcement of the law'' and ``will defend the constitutionality of the Act.'' I appreciate Senator Ashcroft's support for the False Claims Act. He is a man who is dedicated to enforcing the laws of this country and understands the importance of the False Claims Act. All in all the history of the assault on the False Claims Act sends us on a long and winding road. The False Claims Act is, and will remain, a target of those industries and accept billions and billions of taxpayer dollars annually and balk at strict accountability. I ask only that we, as legislators, remember the historical and current assaults made upon the False Claims Act. I ask further that we agree to be strong despite the strength of an industry, simply because it is the `right'' thing to do. Taxpayers deserve no less--and as legislators, we should deliver no less. I ask unanimous consent that the January 31, 2001 letter I received from Senator Ashcroft be considered as read and printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to support the nomination of John Ashcroft, a person with whom I have had the opportunity to serve in the Senate for the 6 years he was here before ending that term after the last election. I think the President of the United States has selected an outstanding nominee to head up the Justice Department. I look forward to working with him. Despite the campaign that has been launched against him, he will be approved by a sizable margin so that he can do his work and do it without any guilt whatsoever about any of the accusations that have been made against him. I add my voice in support of his nomination. Despite these well-publicized, well-financed attempts orchestrated by outside groups to smear his good name, I am thankful Senator Ashcroft will survive this reckless campaign that has snowballed into an avalanche of innuendo, rumor, and spin. From the moment President Bush announced his choice for U.S. Attorney General, some predictable opponents immediately got to work. They circled their wagons and launched an all-out war on our former colleague and his nomination to be Attorney General. In their zeal to pick a fight with the new administration, the debate in the Senate has melted down into a feeding frenzy for the left wing which sought in the process to lay down markers for their agenda. Ironically, the President's nominee for the Nation's top law enforcement office in the country is arguably one of the most qualified candidates this body has ever had the privilege to cast its advice and consent on for the office of U.S. Attorney General. He was twice elected Governor of Missouri, served two terms there as the attorney general, and was for 6 years our colleague--all of that public service is remarkable for a person who will go on to be Attorney General. He has the academic background and the legal background to also be a good Attorney General. From the 6 years I had the privilege of working with John Ashcroft in the Senate, I can unequivocally say he is a man of his word. And what is so important about being a man of his word is that the case made against John Ashcroft is that in the Senate he pursued changes in law, he pursued public policies that maybe some did not agree with. But that is the job of a Senator: to vote for or against public policy you think is good on the one hand, bad on the other hand; public policy you might agree with on the one hand or might disagree with on the other hand. They say he is not qualified to be Attorney General because of a lot of things he did in the Senate, representing his constituents-- forthrightly arguing points he believed in, and voting on those points. But has integrity and honesty. And being a man of his word is so important because as Attorney General he will take an oath to uphold the law. He is going to enforce that law, even law with which he does not agree. He could even be in the position of enforcing some piece of legislation against which he voted on the floor of the Senate because he is a man of his word. And with all the criticism people have had of John Ashcroft, where they disagreed with him as a Senator, and then they criticize him as not being qualified or the right person to be Attorney General, they forget that because he is a man of his word, they have nothing to worry about. In fact, he is such a man of his word that if he were to tell a fib, you would know it right away. He is that straight laced, that straightforward, that transparent of an individual, that he would tell you the truth because he could not lie. He couldn't get away with lying. And he knows he couldn't get away with lying. That is the sort of a person to have as Attorney General of the United States. We are going to have a person who is going to be the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. You will never see him being the chief defense counsel for the President of the United States as we have seen over the last 4 or 5 years in the previous administration. John Ashcroft, put in that position, would resign from being Attorney General of the United States. So the people who are making a case against his being Attorney General, because of votes and speeches and positions he has taken on the floor of the Senate, are comparing apples and oranges; and they are forgetting that a man of his word is going to do what he says, and he takes an oath to uphold the law and enforce that law; and it is going to get done. So I say, once again, he is unequivocally a man of his word. He testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he will enforce the laws of this land, and he is going to do that for all Americans. He said that, and he is going to do it. And his saying that makes me fully confident that he will do so. He has a sharp command of the law, having filled both shoes of Senator, Governor and state Attorney General. He understands the difference between advancing legislation as a Senator and enforcing the laws on the books as a state Attorney General. And along this line, he has been recognized by the leaders of other States in this area, because he was elected by the National Association of Attorneys General, and elected in another position by the National Governors' Association, to represent and lead their organizations while he was in those two positions for the State of Missouri. As fellow midwesterners, John and I come from States where agricultural issues are key components of our economy, our culture, and our heritage. We have discussed at length how to address the challenges confronting family farmers in this new century. He shares my concern that we must foster competitive markets and that the family farmer is entitled to a level playing field--the same for independent producers-- and he would say, beyond agriculture, fair competition is important for the small business people of America. He would also say that for passengers in my State who pay extraordinarily high airline tickets to fly from Des Moines, IA, to Chicago, there has to be competition in the airline industry, particularly for rural America. Based on my experience with Senator Ashcroft's work here in the Senate, I know he is committed to doing what is right for middle America as he enforces these laws that are already on the books. He knows, of course, that I will keep my lines of communication wide open between my office and his when it comes to fighting for the interests of rural America. In addition to his exemplary professional credentials, there is another issue upon which his supporters and detractors alike agree, and that is, our former colleague, Senator John Ashcroft, is a man of principle. He is a man of his word. Just ask the people of Missouri who, not once but time and time again, placed their trust in him for high statewide elected office. Senator Ashcroft's career has been stellar. During his career, Senator Ashcroft has worked to establish a number of things to keep all Americans safe and free from criminal activity. For example, last year Senator Ashcroft introduced a bill to prohibit juveniles from possessing assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips. The Senate overwhelmingly passed this Ashcroft legislation. He also voted for the Gun-Free Schools Zone Act that prohibits the possession of a firearm within a school zone. Because the Clinton Justice Department had not made gun prosecutions a priority, Senator Ashcroft led the charge in directing the Justice Department to increase the prosecution of crimes committed with guns. In fact, he sponsored legislation to authorize $50 million to hire additional Federal prosecutors and law enforcement officers to increase Federal prosecution of criminals who use guns. John Ashcroft's efforts against drug abuse and trafficking are equally as impressive. A leader in the national fight against the scourge of methamphetamine, John Ashcroft won enactment of the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996, among other antidrug laws he got passed. Senator Ashcroft has fought hard for the rights of women and to protect them from domestic abuse. He signed into law a bill, when he was Governor, that allowed women accused of homicide to present battered spouse syndrome evidence in the court in that State. He cosponsored, at the Federal level, the Violence Against Women Act that helped secure $100 million in increased funding to combat violence against women. He voted for legislation that prohibits any person convicted of even misdemeanor acts of domestic violence from possessing a firearm. As Governor, Senator Ashcroft appointed women to the State's appellate courts, including the first two women to the Missouri Court of Appeals and the first woman to the Missouri Supreme Court. In regard to the tactics used against him, deploying distortion and demagoguery to advance their own agenda, groups inside the beltway, who probably have felt very secure for the last years because they had somebody in the White House who would advance their agenda, now feel a little shut out. They have banded together to engineer a controversy about John Ashcroft where none exists. They rushed to cast judgment, and in the process his opponents sought to paint John Ashcroft as a racist, as somebody tainted by his principles and unfit to lead the Department of Justice. Obviously, in my view, these critics have been unable to make their case, and I think when this vote is taken, we will find out that they did not make their case. Despite his critics' best efforts, accusations of racism and bias have not stuck. In fact, throughout his career, Senator Ashcroft has tried to protect the rights of minorities. He signed the Missouri hate crimes bill into law, and in the Senate he held the first-ever hearing on racial profiling. As Governor, he appointed a number of minority judicial candidates. His by-the-book approach to governing rises above and way beyond the decibel level of his detractors, the 200-some organizations that have banded together to make this clean-cut, honest American, great public servant, out to be some very bad person. It is sad that the aggressive publicity generated by the special interest groups to derail this nomination has painted an unfair image of John Ashcroft in the minds of too many Americans. For example, contrary to the controversy surrounding the nomination to the Federal bench of Ronnie White, John Ashcroft does not have a racist bone in his body. If his opponents are keeping track of his support for black judges, it is ironic that they didn't care to publicize the fact that he, as Senator, voted for 26 out of 28 judges of African American descent. He nominated the first black judge to the appellate court as Governor of Missouri, and the St. Louis Black Bar Association praised him for diversity in his court appointments. The trumped-up charges of racism and bias took on a life of their own, but in fact they ring very hollow when we pull back the curtain of his opponents' red hot rhetoric. In recent years, misrepresentations and baldfaced lies coming out of Washington have eroded the electorate's faith and trust in public officials, including all of us. Thankfully, that is not the way the majority of the American people operate. To the majority of the American people, the end does not always justify the means. In fact, seldom is that true. But in the case of this opposition to John Ashcroft, any means is justified for the end they want--to let their grassroots members back home know that even though they don't have the President of the United States always carrying their agenda, as they did the last 8 years, they are going to be a force in this town. And they are a force in this town. They are also telling Members of Congress, particularly left-of- center Members of Congress: You are on a short leash. We have to be reckoned with. Don't toy around with playing with the Republicans too much or a Republican President. It is also going to help them tremendously with their fund-raising. That is what is at stake here. The majority of Americans do not operate that way. Not even a majority of their own rank-and-file members at the grassroots operate that way. I was a member of a labor union from 1961 to 1971. If there is one thing I learned as a member of the labor union--and I was voluntarily a member of the labor union because in my State, we have the right-to-work law, you don't have to join--I found out that the political agenda of the labor union leadership of Detroit or Washington, DC, did not represent the political philosophy of my members on the assembly line at the Waterloo Register Company in Cedar Falls, IA. They may have represented our economic interests of collective bargaining, but they did not represent the political interests of the commonsense, conservative blue-collar workers. It is the very same way with a lot of these organizations. When we go back to the grassroots of our States and interact with the rank-and-file members of a lot of these organizations, they do not treat us in our State the way these leaders might treat us out here, as evidenced by the fact of how they treat John Ashcroft. Misrepresentations and baldfaced lies that are used by this group are not the way my friend and neighbor, John Ashcroft, has built up an impeccable record of honest public service. His rock-solid integrity, legal background, and proven ability to uphold and enforce the law will restore the mission of the Justice Department. It is clear to me that despite his personal beliefs, Senator Ashcroft has proven his ability to uphold the law without the influence of personal bias. For example, as Missouri attorney general, John Ashcroft protected the confidentiality of abortion records maintained by the Missouri Department of Health, even when they were requested by pro- life groups. He has voiced his opposition to violence and his belief that, regardless of his personal views on abortion, people should be able to enter abortion clinics safely. That is the law of the land. Senator Ashcroft's views on abortion are known. But as Attorney General, those laws would not be something that he could change, as one could as a legislator. As a Senator, as a policymaker, he could change some things he might not agree with and I may not agree with. It is still the law of the land, and we live by it. Senator Ashcroft believes that people who commit acts of violence and intimidation should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. He knows that if you are going to have a civil society, you cannot tolerate violence on the part of pro-life people any more than you can tolerate violence on the part of union leaders on the picket line. I conclude by saying that everyone in this institution comes to the Senate with a set of ideals and principles that serve as their guiding compass. Whether it is based upon conservatism, liberalism, or something else, or something in between, each of us in this Chamber has the privilege and responsibility to cast votes of conscience. When the Presiding Officer calls the yeas and nays on this nomination, I hope that the avalanche of unproven criticism will be put to rest as a result of that vote. I want us to confirm John Ashcroft as our next Attorney General. I have listened to the opponents of John Ashcroft speak here. I have not heard every one of the speeches, but I had an opportunity to be on a television program with a colleague of mine from the other side of the aisle who is going to vote against this nomination, the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Bayh, a person of outstanding ethics, honesty, and moral values. His dad served in this Senate, was an outstanding leader and a person of moral and high ethical values as well. I would vote for Senator Bayh to be Attorney General of the United States, if a Democrat President nominated him, because he is just the sort of person who, when you look at him, you just know this guy is not going to do something that is wrong. You know he is going to enforce the law. I hope all of the people who are upright and of strong conviction on the other side, people who have high moral and ethical values--and I know my colleagues on the other side to be in that category--I hope they vote for John Ashcroft to be Attorney General. I could cast a vote for them as well for Attorney General, not because they are my colleagues, but because of what I have seen in their lives. I hope they truly have seen what is in John Ashcroft's life. And I hope those that are against him will have a little guilty feeling about voting against him, unless I see them differently from the way they are and I have been mistaken about John Ashcroft. But I haven't been mistaken about John Ashcroft, and I haven't been mistaken about my colleagues from the other side as well. I just hope there is a lot of soul searching in the next few hours before we vote because I think this Senator is entitled to an overwhelming vote of support to become the next Attorney General of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. President, I, as I did yesterday, urge my colleagues to vote to confirm President Bush's nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, the outstanding Governor of the State of Wisconsin, Tommy Thompson. Statements made during yesterday's session by Senators from both sides of the aisle made it apparent that the qualities that have made Governor Thompson so successful in Wisconsin also make him an ideal choice to lead this very all-encompassing Department of Health and Human Services. Governor Thompson is a problem solver. He is an innovator and really is a leader with a record of success, particularly during the 14 years he has served as Governor of the State of Wisconsin. His record as Governor of the State of Wisconsin should show everybody that he is a person committed to improving the lives of real people. The impressive results he has brought about in his great State should inspire all of us. In fact, his success in welfare reform there inspired Congress to pass the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. He was, even while Governor, an advisor to many Members of the Congress who felt we ought to move people from welfare to work, move people from the fringe of our economic society to the center, to the mainstream of that society so they can benefit, as others do, from the dynamics of our economy. Most Wisconsinites--94 percent--have health insurance because of his leadership. The disabled and elderly persons needing long-term care have a state-of-the-art support system to turn to, thanks to Governor Thompson's leadership. Programs such as Pathways to Independence and Family Care are efficient and effective and are part of a reliable safety net program. They call the program he instituted in Wisconsin the Wisconsin Works Welfare Reform Program. It has helped the State reduce its welfare caseload by nearly 95 percent. Think of that: reducing the welfare caseload by 95 percent. This is good for government, but, most important, we do not have welfare reform to help government; we have welfare reform to help people. The program that has been before the country for the last 4 years is not doing everything we want it to do. It is not good to have people on the fringe of our society, people who know no other life than a public check coming from the welfare office. That is not a humane way to treat people. It is humane in our society to help people who cannot help themselves, but for those people who can help themselves--and people generally, if given the incentive, do want to help themselves--we have the responsibility to move them from the edge of society into the mainstream of society. That is exactly what happened in Wisconsin. More specifically, there was a program in place in Wisconsin before we adopted ours in Washington, DC, for the entire nation, and that program reduced the caseload by 95 percent. Governor Thompson's record in Wisconsin is, indeed, impressive, and we are prepared, I believe, to confirm his nomination. He will bring a wealth of knowledge, a very positive outlook, and an innovative style to the national debate on welfare reform and to Medicare improvements, including prescription drugs. Governor Thompson made it clear during his nomination hearings that he welcomes the opportunity to work with any Member, Republican or Democrat, who has a special interest or special concern. One only needs to listen to the glowing recommendations from the distinguished Senators from Wisconsin, both Democrats, to be assured of his commitment to bipartisanship. Such bipartisanship, if anything is going to get done, is dictated by the makeup of the Senate and the closeness of the Presidential election. More importantly, it is the way that Governor Thompson has worked in Wisconsin. Obviously, it is the way he is going to work with us. I look forward to his collaborative approach to getting the job done and urge my colleagues to join me in approving this nomination. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. Just in case there is an interest in speeding this nomination along, I am prepared to yield back any time I have left. Before I sit down, Mr. President, I have this request from the leader.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Wednesday, January 24, 2001, at 10 a.m. The markup will take place in Dirksen Room 226.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on the nomination of Elaine Chao to be Secretary of Labor during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 24, 2001, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 24, for purposes of conducting a Full Committee business meeting which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this business meeting is to consider the nomination of Gale Norton to be Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, January 24, 2001, at 9:30 a.m. on the Nomination of Norman Mineta to be Secretary of Transportation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I now ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Therefore, Mr. President, I am announcing for the leader, there will then be two back-to-back votes beginning at 11:30 a.m. today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be in order en bloc on both nominations.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 11:30 a.m. vote today, the nomination of Norman Mineta, to be Secretary of Transportation, be placed on the calendar. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to its consideration and a vote on the confirmation of the nomination. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the vote, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, if it is necessary for me to yield back time, I will, but I did not want to yield back time until I knew exactly where we were with other people who had time. Mr. President, I yield back my time.