Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the support of Senator Breaux in introducing The Nursing Home Staff Improvement Act of 2000. This is an important piece of legislation for the 1.6 million frail elderly Americans who reside in nursing homes across the nation. A recently released and long overdue report from the Health Care Financing Administration was the immediate impetus for our bill. This report was first mandated by Congress in 1990. It took the Department of Health and Human Services 10 years to complete Part I of the report. It will take almost another year to finish it. The first part of the study documented, to just about everyone's satisfaction, severe staffing shortages, severe staffing shortages in our nation's nursing homes. While we are waiting for the agency to complete the second and final part of the report, Senate Breaux and I want to begin to address the staffing crisis in long-term care. Therefore, we are introducing this legislation today. We have a long way to go in meeting the staffing needs of elderly nursing home residents. The bill we are introducing today is not the answer to the problem. It is only a first step. Yet, it is an extremely important step that Congress should take. Before describing the bill Senator Breaux and I are introducing today, I'd like to take a couple of minutes to go over the history of our committee's work on nursing home quality of care and HCFA oversight of the Nursing Home Reform Act of 1987. It's important for me to emphasize the scope and depth of the problem in order to give my fellow Senators an appreciation of the context out of which this legislation developed. In the fall of 1997, serious allegations were brought to my attention about the quality of care provided in California nursing homes. These allegations claimed that thousands of California nursing home residents had suffered and met with untimely and unnecessary deaths due to malnutrition, dehydration, decubitus ulcers, and urinary tract infections. In an effort to respond to these allegations, I asked the General Accounting Office [GAO] to conduct a thorough review of them and, more generally, of the quality of care in California nursing homes. This review culminated in a 2-day hearing held on July 27-28, 1998, entitled ``Betrayal: The Quality of Care in California Nursing Homes.'' At this hearing, the GAO released its report titled ``California Nursing Homes: Care Problems Persist Despite Federal and State Oversight.'' The findings of this report were explosive and disturbing, illustrating that residents in far too many California nursing homes were threatened by seriously substandard care. One week prior to this hearing, the Clinton administration announced a broad set of new nursing home initiatives to improve enforcement of the Nursing Home Reform Act and, hence, the quality of care in nursing facilities. The administration was acting in response to the impending release of the GAO's study before the scheduled Aging Committee hearing. It acted also in response to a congressionally mandated report by the Department of Health and Human Services on nursing home oversight that was completed just before the hearing. The Department's report uncovered weaknesses on the part of the federal government in its oversight of nursing home quality of care. As the Federal agency with regulatory oversight responsibility over our Nation's nursing homes, the Health Care Financing Administration [HCFA] is responsible for monitoring the compliance of nursing home facilities in meeting the requirements of the Nursing Home Reform Act. For facilities found to be noncompliant, HCFA is responsible for seeing that remedies or sanctions are imposed until the situation is corrected. The administration's report found shortcomings in HCFA's enforcement of the Nursing Home Reform Act of 1987. The agency's report was really a kind of self- indictment. Up to that point, the agency had failed in its responsibility to protect nursing home residents. As part of its multistep initiative, the administration called for improvements in nursing home inspections, better and more timely enforcement against nursing homes that repeatedly violate safety rules, and more attention to quality of care for nursing home residents through prevention of bed sores, malnutrition and dehydration. HCFA was given the responsibility for carrying out this initiative. Under my chairmanship, the Senate Special Committee on Aging has taken an active role in overseeing the implementation of the President's nursing home initiative led by the Administrator of HCFA. At regular hearings and forums, 10 to be specific, I have heard from family members, health care professionals and other long-term care experts about the progress and obstacles in achieving improved nursing home quality of care. Anecdotally, we have heard from the very beginning of our work on nursing home quality of care that understaffing is a root cause of many of the problems facing nursing home residents. Because we desperately needed a more systematic, research-based analysis of this understaffing problem, I had persistently urged HCFA to finish the long delayed staffing report I mentioned earlier. On July 27, 2000, Part I of the report, entitled ``Appropriateness of Minimum Staffing Ratios in Nursing Homes'' was done, and our committee held a hearing to take testimony on it. The report and the hearing presented groundbreaking new information on nursing facility staffing. It was the first time that understaffing, and the consequences of understaffing, were described by a scientifically sound government report. Although a Part II of the report will be required to completely validate the findings of Part I and to analyze a number of other questions raised by Part I, the report showed for the first time what family members and resident advocates had been saying for years: that the majority of nursing homes in our country are dramatically understaffed. Specifically, the report concluded that more than half of nursing facilities around the country employ too few nurses and nurse aides to provide adequate care to residents. As a result of these report findings, I began working on legislation to address the serious problems of understaffing. I started by seeking input from interested parties, including the Administration, nursing home providers, health care professionals, and resident advocates. I finalized my proposal right around the same time the President announced the administration's initiative in this area. The two proposals are similar in their goal to start addressing the problems of understaffing in nursing facilities. As I said earlier, the impetus for my bill was the Report to Congress on the ``Appropriateness of Minimum Nurse Staffing Ratios in Nursing Homes''. The major conclusions of the report are outlined in the Findings section of our bill. The report found that 2.0 nurse aide hours per resident day is a threshold below which residents' lives are at risk, not a standard for the provision of appropriate care. The findings also showed that 2.9 nurse aide hours per resident day are necessary for a nurse aide to complete core resident care tasks, although, because of the very conservative estimates used in this part of the study, 2.9 hours probably significantly understates the staffing levels necessary for a nurse aide to complete these core tasks. Part I of the report also indicated that Part II will analyze and report on minimum staffing levels according to a facility's resident acuity level. I urge Congress and the Administration to be careful in accepting either the 2.0 or 2.9 nurse aide hours per resident day as a minimum goal for nursing facilities until these results are validated and case-mix is included in the equation. It is reasonable to expect that staffing requirements will be substantially higher for facilities that have residents with higher acuity. Our bill calls for the completion of phase two of the study. It requires the Secretary to complete the report not later than July 1, 2001. It adds to the original authority a requirement that the study undertake several tasks that Part I of the report stated would be done in the second phase. Among other things, these tasks include a requirement that the case mix analysis of Part I of the report be further refined and related to appropriate minimum staffing levels. It also adds to the original authority a requirement that the report analyze ``optimal minimum'' caregiver to resident levels and ``optimal minimum'' supervisor to caregiver levels of skilled nursing facilities participating in the Medicare program and nursing facilities participating in the Medicaid program. We modified the original authority in this manner because we believed the public should know not just appropriate minimum staffing levels, but also what more optimal staffing levels should be in nursing facilities. My bill requires that minimum staffing levels be developed and enforced within one year of the completion of the Report. It requires the Secretary to make recommendations regarding appropriate minimum caregiver to resident levels and minimum supervisor to caregiver levels for skilled nursing facilities participating in the Medicare program and nursing facilities participating in the Medicaid program. The Secretary further shall require through the administrative rulemaking process compliance with appropriate minimum staffing levels as a condition for such facilities to receive payment under those programs. The Secretary would be required to promulgate a final rule not later than one year after completion of the report. The bill requires that the Secretary establish appropriate minimum staffing levels because we believed that a regulatory requirement should establish those staffing levels that will assure that residents receive the quality of care they have a right to receive under the terms of the Nursing Home Reform Act of 1987. We assume that the resident case mix of a facility will have an effect on the appropriate minimum staffing levels of the facility. In order to help States prepare for the minimum staffing levels that the Secretary will promulgate by July 1, 2002, my bill establishes a competitive state grant program. The purpose of the grant program will be to improve staffing levels in nursing facilities in order to improve the quality of care to residents of such facilities. A state that secures such a grant may provide technical or financial support to nursing facilities, labor organizations, nonprofit organizations, community colleges, or other organizations approved by the Secretary. Such support from the state shall be used for projects which will help to increase or improve recruitment and retention of direct care nursing staff. Projects supported by a state must be consistent with the requirements of sections 1818 and 1919 of the Social Security Act. No funds may be made available to county or state-owned nursing facilities. Funds used under a grant to a state may only be used to supplement, not supplant, other funds that the state extends to carry out the activities that may be supported by this grant program. The Secretary shall evaluate this grant program and report to the Congress on her findings not later than six months after completion of the grant program. Authorized to be appropriated are $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002. My bill includes a requirement for reporting of accurate information on staffing. Skilled nursing facilities participating in the Medicare program and nursing facilities participating in the Medicaid program would be required to submit staffing information to the Secretary in a form and manner determined by the Secretary. Such information must be attested to as accurate by the reporting facility. The Secretary shall periodically post and update such information on the Nursing Home Compare web site. Skilled nursing facilities participating in the Medicare program and nursing facilities participating in the Medicaid program shall submit to the Secretary a classification of all residents of the facility according to the resident classification system required under current law. My understanding is that nursing facilities should have data on hand and in a form that would be required by the Secretary for reporting to the Department, and, thus, the administrative burden of this requirement should be minimal. My bill includes a requirement for posting of facility staffing information. Facilities participating in the Medicare and Medicaid program would be required to post daily for each nursing unit and each work shift the current number of licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care together with the number of residents per unit and shift. Throughout my work and oversight activity of nursing facility quality of care, I have made it a point to stress that there are many good nursing facilities. When a family is in need of a facility for a loved one, it is critically important that individuals shop around and gather information in order to find the best nursing home to meet the needs of their loved ones. The provision in my bill calling for additional reporting of staffing and facility posting of staffing data will help families which need to find a good facility for a loved one's placement. It should also eventually have an effect on the overall quality of care in nursing facilities as families search out and choose better facilities. The information collected by HCFA will help it improve and maintain its Nursing Home Compare web site. This is a database which contains information on every Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing home in the country. You can locate nursing homes in your area and find information about compliance with Medicare and Medicaid regulations based on the facility's most recent survey by state inspectors. Additionally, the web site contains useful phone numbers for survey agencies and long term care ombudsmen on the web site's ``Phone Directory'' page. In closing, I plan to continue my work to improve quality of care and quality of life for nursing home residents. In my position as Chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, I will continue to monitor the quality of care provided to our nation's nursing home residents. With the assistance of the GAO, I will continually assess and monitor the Health Care Financing Administration's progress and commitment to improving the quality of care in nursing homes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Congress has wisely passed and will send to the President for signature H.R. 4733, the energy and water development appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001. I strongly urge the President to sign this vital legislation. Proper management of our Nation's rivers is a concern for many Americans. Our rivers provide us drinking water, transportation, and recreation. They also provide habitat for aquatic life, wildlife, and birds. Good management techniques provide that all of these purposes are taken into account and managed appropriately and fairly. I firmly believe that H.R. 4733 provides for good river management. Specifically, section 103 prohibits the use of funds to revise the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual if the revision provides for increases in springtime water releases during spring N O T I C E Effective January 1, 2001, the subscription price of the Congressional Record will be $393 per year or $197 for six months. Individual issues may be purchased for $4.00 per copy. The cost for the microfiche edition will remain $141 per year with single copies remaining $1.50 per issue. This price increase is necessary based upon the cost of printing and distribution. Michael F. DiMario, Public Printer heavy rainfall or snow melt. Many Iowans see this as just good common sense. Increased spring water releases could easily cause the wild Missouri, and its many tributaries, to once again flood low-lying areas, including farmland and communities. Floods would cause a severe economic hardship on those affected. Farmers would be unable to plant crops, and home and business owners would experience property damage. Economic activity in the flood areas would decrease or cease during and immediately after the flooding, causing a loss of income for those impacted. Many Americans forget what it was like to live along the Missouri prior to the construction of the dams. They forgot that the Missouri was truly wild. They forgot what it was like not to be able to safely plant your crops, grow them with some security that there would not be summer floods, and then be able to harvest them safely. They forgot what it was like to lose all or part of a crop. That meant the loss of your investment in time, labor, seed and other inputs. And that meant no income coming in after the harvest. The folks in town were hurt, too. Houses and businesses were swept away. Basements were flooded with water, muck and other debris. Sometimes the water level went higher than that to the first floor, or even higher. Furniture and family keepsakes were destroyed. Businesses lost inventories. They could not serve their customers if the store was closed. Public drinking water system suffered damage, as did sewer systems. The economic devastation was high. The quality of life suffered. Increased spring water releases would also cause less water to be released during the summer months. The lower river levels would halt river barge transportation. Barges are a key part of the agricultural transportation system. Loss of barge traffic would delivery the western part of America's great grain belt into the monopolistic hands of the rail roads. Iowa farmers have clearly told me that this is unacceptable. Loss of the use of barges to transport agricultural commodities will drive up farm transportation prices. That in turn will drive up the overall price of our agricultural goods that must compete in the international marketplace. This is unfair to our hardworking farmers, as it puts them in jeopardy of losing markets. While the farm crops travel down-river to reach markets, the loss of barge traffic would also affect bulk commodities and other items that travel up-river to Iowa. They include fertilizer for farm use, salt for highways in winter, steel for processing plants, and the like. The potential for moving cement for construction purposes would also be lost with lower summer water levels. I have talked to many Iowans who live along the Missouri River. They have told me of the devastation left from past floods. That devastation was more than economic. It produced heartache and broken dreams. Though Iowans are a strong people, the past floods have left their scars on individuals and in community life. Those Iowans have joined together on a nonpartisan basis to say, ``No more floods!'' That is the message for the President to consider as he deliberates on the energy and water appropriations bill. The President is in a powerful position to either do good or to inflict harm. It is almost as if he were actually God, able to exercise the power to flood or not to flood. That is how powerful he is on this issue. It is an awesome power that I hope that he uses wisely. It is my hope that he will decide to prevent flooding. It is my hope that he will listen to our farmers and not make their jobs more difficult than they already are. It is my hope that he will sign this bill. Mr. President, let the people live in their homes, work in their businesses and farm their farms in safety. Clearly, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has violated Federal law in its ordering of the Corps of Engineers to begin a spring flood. It ignored the process set forth in the Endangered Species Act. These processes are there to protect everyone, and they were not followed. It has also based much of its opinion on speculation, not facts. The President must depend upon facts and protect due process. H.R. 4733 is good legislation which should be signed into law. It does not deserve a veto. Mr. President, please sign this important legislation. President Clinton, one time, in private conversation with me, you told me how you understood the problems of the farmers more than most Presidents ever did because you had studied them so much. Mr. President, you have been in the White House 8 years. I do not know how long it has been since you have visited a supermarket. But remember, food grows on farms, it does not grow in supermarkets. You have an opportunity here to help the farmers in the States of Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri to be able to put their crops in in the spring, to be able to take those crops out in the fall, to be able to ship the harvest down the river when it is most needed, so that the farmers are not the captives of a monopolistic railroad if the barge traffic isn't there for competition. So, Mr. President, show us that you do, in fact, understand the problems of the farmers and sign this legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I say on behalf of the leader, the Senate will be in a period for morning business until 10 a.m. Following morning business the Senate is expected to begin consideration of the conference report to accompany the Transportation appropriations bill or the sex trafficking conference report. The House is expected to consider the Transportation appropriations legislation this morning. Therefore, it is hoped that a vote can occur prior to noon today. Senators will be notified as soon as votes are scheduled. The leader thanks our colleagues for their attention.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Ten minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. May I speak just on the bill?

Mr. GRASSLEY. I don't want to go through that if I don't have to.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the administration is at it again. Late last month, it issued its findings from the latest Household Survey on drug use in America. You would have to look fast to find anything about it. As usual, the administration chose to release the information when no one was looking. And as usual, they did this hoping no one would notice. Given that the majority of the press did not bother to do more than rephrase the press release from the Department of Health and Human Services, it would be hard to figure out just what the 300-odd page report actually said anyway. But neither the press release nor the news accounts do justice to what is not happening. What is not happening is the fact that the drug use picture is not getting any better. When it comes to drugs, the administration just can't say it straight. It continues the trend of its incumbency of labeling bad news or good news and counting on the press to not look beyond the hype. In releasing the latest data, Secretary Shalala says that the report shows the continuing downward trend in drug use. She remarked at the press conference that, ``We've not only turned the corner--we're heading for home plate,''--suggesting that the report shows that the administration has hit a home run. I'm not sure at which game Secretary Shalala is playing, but the most generous interpretation is that she clearly is not reading her own reports or her staff is not telling her what's in them. She needs new glasses or new staff. Despite this happy talk, even HHS's own press release notes that, ``Illicit drug use among the overall population 12 and older remained flat.'' That may be a home run down at HHS but in plain English that means ``no change.'' In my book, ``flat'' does not mean continuing a downward trend. I suppose in an election year ``no change'' in how many people are using drugs is a sign of success. Least ways, that's how this administration sees it. Or, wants you and me to see it. But when you actually get down into the numbers, this ``success'' is not all it appears to be. It shares something with the Cheshire cat--it disappears when you look at it. In true Alice in Wonderland logic, down is not always not up. To follow Shalala's analogy with baseball, what we have here is not a home run but the runner rounding the bases on a foul ball. Before I get to actual numbers, let me say something on background about this year's report. The thing to note is that the administration has changed the methodology for how it collects data for the report. Why is that important? Here's what the report says: ``Because of the differences in methodology and impact of the new survey design on data collection, only limited comparisons can be made between data from the 1999 survey and data from surveys prior to 1999.'' Now, in those years since 1993, that data show dramatic increases in drug use on this administration's watch. During each of those years, however, the administration tried to put a ``spin'' on the information, calling bad news good news. Instead of doing that any more, they have decided to play hide and seek with the information. Don't like the results? Well . . . Change the way you figure them and declare success. As with the Cheshire cat, pretty soon all you're left with is the smile. Even this little bit of sleight of hand, however, does not wholly work. It's really very simple. There has been no significant change for the better in the rate of past month drug use on this administration's watch. More seniors graduating from high school today report using drugs than in any year since 1975. Almost 55 percent of high school seniors now report using an illegal drug before graduation. Use of heroin among young people is on the rise. We are in the midst of a methamphetamine epidemic. If reports are accurate, we are awash in Ecstasy and its use among the young is accelerating. The rate of illicit drug use has increased in six out of the last seven years. The administration tries to hide this fact by reporting on a decline of use among 12-17-year-olds in hopes no one will notice an increase among 18-25-year-olds. But this is a statistical game. Although there is an unfortunate trend in the onset of drug use at earlier ages, onset begins most typically among 15-18-year-olds. By including the earlier years in the count, you disguise the true rate of increase. Even allowing for the moment that the administration spin is true, however, does not change the fact that youthful use of drugs continues spiraling upwards. Today's use levels are 70 percent higher than when this administration took office. The numbers are not getting better. Yet, we have another report and another press release touting victory. This is shameful and to call it anything else is a sham. And just as bad, fewer kids are reporting that using illicit drugs is dangerous--a sure sign of future problems. Especially at a time when we have a well-monied, aggressive legalization campaign that this administration has done little to counter. And this despite a $200 million-a-year ad campaign aimed at exactly these age groups that this administration touts as a success. The most optimistic thing a recent GAO report had to say about this much-troubled effort is the hope that it might do better. The administration also continues the game of trying to hide its record by lumping the increasing use figures on its watch with the decreasing use figures in earlier administrations. I have complained repeatedly about this gimmick. This is just plain deception. Mr. President, I am often critical of this administration's happy-go- lucky ways when it comes to drug policy. The administration is like the grasshopper in the old fable. It's out there fiddling around when it ought to be working. That said, I do not mean this criticism to detract from the fine work done by the many men and women in our law enforcement agencies. These fine people risk their lives every day to do important and difficult work on behalf of the public. I want to take a moment to highlight some of the achievements and invaluable service provided to this nation by the men and women of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the U.S. Customs Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard. As chairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, I would like to express my thanks and make known the tremendous pride that I think we should all have in the good people in these agencies. The men and women of the DEA, Customs, and the Coast Guard are dedicated to the protection of the United States and to ensuring the safety of our children and our lives from the devastating affects of the drug trade. They are called on daily to place their lives in harm's way in an effort to keep our nation secure. When they are boarding smuggler's vessels on the seas. When they stop terrorists at the border. When they investigate narcotics trafficking organizations around the globe. When they dismantle clandestine methamphetamine labs, engage in undercover operations, safeguard our ports of entry, or shut down ecstasy peddling night clubs, these fine people risk their lives and well being for all of us. DEA efforts this year include Operation Mountain Express, which arrested 140 individuals in 8 cities, seized $8 million and 10 metric tons of pseudoephedrine tablets, which could have produced approximately 18,000 pounds of methamphetamine. In addition, DEA's Operation Tar Pit, in cooperation with the FBI, resulted in nearly 200 arrests in 12 cities and the seizure of 41 pounds of heroin. The heroin ring they busted was peddling dope to kids, many of these kids died. DEA, in conjunction with State and local law enforcement, has also aggressively dismantled hundreds of clandestine methamphetamine labs that poison our urban and rural communities. The United States Customs Service has seized over 9,000,000 Ecstasy tablets in the last 10 months. Ecstasy is an emerging problem that affects not only our large cities but many rural areas, including my home State of Iowa. In addition, their Miami River operations have resulted in the seizure of 18 vessels, mostly arriving from Haiti, and over 7,000 pounds of cocaine--a small portion of the over 122,000 pounds of cocaine seized this fiscal year. Finally, the Customs Service has seized over 1 million pounds of marijuana and over 2,000 pounds of heroin as well, often in very risky situations. Coast Guard successes this year include a record-breaking seizure total of over 123,000 pounds of cocaine, including many major cases in the Eastern Pacific. This effort went forward even while still interdicting over 4,000 illegal alien migrants bound for U.S. shores. In addition, the deployment of two specially equipped interdiction helicopters in Operation New Frontier had an unprecedented success rate of six seized go-fast vessels in six attempts. Finally, as announced last month, a joint DEA and Customs investigation--supported by the Coast Guard and Department of Defense-- concluded a 2-year multinational case against a Colombian drug transportation organization. The result was the arrest of 43 suspects and the seizure of nearly 25 tons of cocaine, with a retail street value of $1 billion. Operation Journey targeted an organization that used large commercial vessels to haul multi-ton loads of cocaine. This organization may have shipped a total of 68 tons of cocaine to 12 countries in Europe and North America. I believe we should all be proud of the jobs these folks do on our behalf.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Senator from Alabama for the support he has given to the drug caucus. Most importantly, he is a regular attender of our meetings and hearings. His support and interest in this issue, particularly coming from his background as a U.S. attorney, have been very helpful to the work of the drug caucus as well. I thank him for that.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I indicate to my colleagues I will take a few minutes to speak about the administration's energy policy; however, as I think about it, it is better to entitle it the administration's ``no energy'' policy. Mr. President, I rise today to express my frustration and anger with the Clinton/Gore administration's lack of an energy policy. Each weekend I travel back to my home state of Iowa. In recent weeks I have spent many hours explaining to my constituents why fuel prices are so high, and unfortunately, explaining why prices will likely rise past current levels. I've continually had the displeasure of looking truckers and farmers in the eye and telling them there is no relief in sight. In my home state we are experiencing price levels not seen in a decade, but all I can tell my farmers and truckers is that it is likely going to get worse. In recent weeks, the price of crude oil reached more than $37 a barrel, the highest price in 10 years. Natural gas is $5.10 per million Btu's, double over a year ago. Heating oil in Iowa is around $1.25 a gallon, up 40 cents from this time last year. And propane, a critical fuel which farmers use to dry grain, is up 55 percent since last year. These increases are simply unacceptable. Iowans and the rest of the nation should not have been subjected to these price spikes. Unfortunately, it is the Clinton/Gore administration's lack of an energy policy over the past 7\1/2\ years that have directly led to the situation we are facing today. Mr. President, two weeks ago, Vice President Gore stated, and I quote: ``I will work toward the day when we are free forever from the dominance of big oil and foreign oil.'' Yet, since 1992, U.S. oil production is down 18 percent--the lowest level since 1954. At the same time, U.S. oil consumption has risen 14 percent. The result: U.S. dependence on foreign oil under the Clinton/Gore administration has increased 34 percent. We now depend on foreign oil cartels for 58 percent of our crude oil, compared to just 36 percent during the Arab oil embargo of 1973. Some may be wondering how we got here. The answer is clear. This administration is opposed to the use of coal. Opposed to nuclear energy production. Opposed to hydroelectric dams. Opposed to new oil refineries; 36 have been closed, but none has been built in the past eight years. And, this administration is opposed to domestic oil and gas exploration and production. This administration opposes nearly every form of domestic energy production. They do, however, support the use of clean, efficient, and domestically produced natural gas. Currently, 50 percent of American homes are heated with natural gas. In addition, 15 percent of our nation's electric power is generated by natural gas. And while demand for natural gas is expected to increase by 30 percent over the next decade, the administration has not provided the land access necessary to increase supply. As this map demonstrates, federal lands in the Rocky Mountains and the Gulf of Mexico, along with offshore areas in the Atlantic and the Pacific, contain over 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Access to this land could provide the resources necessary to meet current demand for nearly ten years. Unfortunately, this land and millions of acres of forest are either closed to exploration or effectively off limits. Simply put, our nation's producers can't meet demand without greater access to the resources God gave us. I am a strong supporter of alternative and renewable energy. I have been a leader in the Senate in promoting alternative energy sources as a way of protecting our environment and increasing our energy independence. My support for expanding the production of ethanol, wind and biomass energy has directly led to the increased use of these abundant renewable energy resources. But right now, these are only part of the solution, and President Clinton and Vice President Gore know that. The administration does not have a plan to deal with our current energy needs. I believe the solution is clear. It is time to support and encourage responsible resource development--using our best technology to protect our environment--to increase domestic energy production. It is time to make use of the vast resources this great country has to offer. Only then will we be free from so much dependence on foreign sources of energy. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am often critical of this Administration's happy-go-lucky ways when it comes to drug policy. The administration is like the grasshopper in the old fable. It's out there fiddling around when it ought to be working. That said, I do not mean this criticism to detract from the fine work done by the many men and women in our law enforcement agencies. These fine people risk their lives every day to do important and difficult work on behalf of the public. I want to take a moment to highlight some of the achievements and invaluable service provided to this nation by the men and women of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the U.S. Customs Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard. As chairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, I would like to express my thanks and make known the tremendous pride that I think we should all have in the good people in these agencies. The men and women of the DEA, Customs, and the Coast Guard are dedicated to the protection of the United States and to ensuring the safety of our children and our lives from the devastating effects of the drug trade. They are called on daily to place their lives in harm's way in an effort to keep our nation secure. When they are boarding smugglers' vessels on the seas. When they stop terrorists at the border. When they investigate narcotics trafficking organizations around the globe. When they dismantle clandestine methamphetamine labs, engage in undercover operations, safeguard our ports of entry, or shut down ecstasy peddling night clubs, these fine people risk their lives and well being for all of us. DEA efforts this year include Operation Mountain Express, which arrested 140 individuals in 8 cities, seized $8 million and 10 metric tons of pseudoephedrine tablets, which could have produced approximately 18,000 pounds of methamphetamine. In addition, DEA's Operation Tar Pit, in cooperation with the FBI, resulted in nearly 200 arrests in 12 cities and the seizure of 41 pounds of heroin. The heroin ring they busted was peddling dope to kids, many of whom died. DEA, in conjunction with State and local law enforcement, has also aggressively dismantled hundreds of clandestine methamphetamine labs that poison our urban streets and rural communities. The United States Customs Service has seized over 9,000,000 Ecstasy tablets in the last 10 months. Ecstasy is an emerging problem that affects not only our large cities but many rural areas, including my home State of Iowa. In addition, their Miami River operations have resulted in the seizure of 18 vessels, mostly arriving from Haiti, and over 7,000 pounds of cocaine--a small portion of the over 122,000 pounds of cocaine seized this fiscal year. Finally, the Customs Service has seized over 1 million pounds of marijuana and over 2,000 pounds of heroin as well, often in very risky situations. Coast Guard successes this year include a record-breaking seizure total of over 123,000 pounds of cocaine, including many major cases in the Eastern Pacific. This effort went forward even while still interdicting over 4,000 illegal alien migrants bound for U.S. shores. In addition, the deployment of two specially equipped interdiction helicopters in Operation New Frontier had an unprecedented success rate of six seized go-fast vessels in six attempts. Finally, as announced last month, a joint DEA and Customs investigation--supported by the Coast Guard and Department of Defense-- concluded a 2 year multinational case against a Colombian drug transportation organization. The result was the arrest of 43 suspects and the seizure of nearly 25 tons of cocaine, with a retail street value of $1 billion. Operation Journey targeted an organization that used large commercial vessels to haul multi-ton loads of cocaine. This organization may have shipped a total of 68 tons of cocaine to 12 countries in Europe and North America. I believe we should all be proud of the jobs these folks do on our behalf.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today is the celebration for Angels in Adoption and as a member of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, I am proud to participate in such an important event. I commend Diane, and Jim Lewis, from Marion, IA. I nominated this amazing couple as Angels in Adoption. Diane and Jim Lewis are the proud parents of ten beautiful children, eight of whom are adopted. Five of their adopted children have special health care needs, some with physical needs, other with mental health needs. Two of their adopted children are biologic siblings and their adoption has allowed them to stay together. Their family now consists of children from several different ethnic and racial backgrounds. The Lewis' also are frequently foster parents to other children in need, usually those with special health care needs. As special education teachers, the Lewis' have seen the need over many years for foster and adoptive parents for children who have special needs. The Lewis' are truly devoted to making the world a better place for children. By committing their lives to raising children who might not have otherwise had a chance, they have improved the lives of children and given us all something to aspire to. They are Angels in Adoption.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I'm introducing a bill to implement recommendations by the General Accounting Office contained in a report--issued just today--which assesses the efforts of the Department of Agriculture's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) in implementing the Packers and Stockyards Act. Done correctly, GIPSA is supposed to use the Packers and Stockyards Act as a tool to prevent farmers from being subject to unfair and anti- competitive practices. In August 1999, I asked the GAO to investigate whether GIPSA was taking full advantage of its authority to investigate competition concerns in the cattle and hog industries. In a nutshell, GIPSA has failed in its mission to protect family farmers. GIPSA has failed to ensure fairness and competitiveness in the livestock industry. The report recommends that significant changes need to be made to GIPSA's investigation and case management, operations, and development processes, as well as its staff resources and capabilities, in order for it to effectively perform its Packers and Stockyards duties. The news of this administration's failure of duty couldn't come at a worse time. Family farmers and independent producers are experiencing some of the lowest prices for their commodities in years. In the meantime, agribusiness has become so concentrated that family farmers are concerned they can't get a fair price for their products. They are seeing fewer options for marketing their commodities and they are having to sustain increased input costs. The extent of concentration in agribusiness has raised serious concerns about the ability of companies to engage in unfair practices. Most of these complaints involve the livestock industry. The Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission are responsible for protecting the marketplace from mergers, acquisitions and practices that adversely affect competition. But GIPSA, under the Packers and Stockyards Act, has substantial, explicit authority to halt anti- competitive activity in the livestock industry by taking investigative, enforcement and regulatory action. But GIPSA has done none of this. All we hear are calls for more legislation or more money. It's clear that this is just another example of this administration passing the buck to Congress by calling for new legislative authority, when they are the ones that have failed to exercise the broad authority they already have. If USDA won't use their existing powers, what makes us in Congress think they'd use new powers? As I've stated, I asked for this GAO investigation because I suspected that USDA had not been doing enough to ensure that small and mid-sized producers were not being harmed by possible anti-competitive activity in the livestock industry. So, to tell you the truth, I wasn't surprised when GIPSA got a failing grade. But I can tell you that I am outraged by USDA and this administration's lack of priorities in doing their job and their failure to enforce the laws on the books. Let me make this clear, this USDA is not a friend to the family farmer. And the Clinton-Gore administration is one to talk about us here in Congress doing nothing about concerns in agriculture. Maybe I need to define what ``nothing'' means. I think that this GAO Report defines ``nothing'' quite well. Let me summarize the findings of the GAO report. The report confirms that GIPSA's authority to halt anti-competitive practices and protect buyers and sellers of livestock is quite broad and, in fact, go further than the Sherman Act in addressing anti-competitive practices. The report also found that two major factors have impacted GIPSA's capability to perform their competition duties. Investigation and case methods, practices and processes are inadequate or non-existent at GIPSA. For example, the GAO found that GIPSA's investigations are planned and conducted primarily by economists and technical specialists without the formal involvement of USDA's Office of General Counsel attorneys from the beginning of an investigation. Attorneys only get involved when a case report is completed. On the other hand, DOJ and FTC have teams of attorneys and economists that perform investigations of anti- competitive practices, with the attorneys taking the lead from the outset to ensure that a legal theory is focused on the potential violation of law. The GAO also found that GIPSA does not have investigative methods designed for competition cases, nor does it have investigation guidance for anti-competitive practice methods and processes. In contrast, DOJ and FTC have detailed processes and practices specifically designed for these kinds of cases. GIPSA is also inadequately staffed. The GAO indicated that although the agency has hired additional economists, they are relatively inexperienced. More importantly, even though I understand there are around 300 lawyers in the General Counsel's Office, the report found that the number of attorneys working on GIPSA matters has actually decreased from 8 to 5 since GIPSA reorganized in 1998. To add insult to injury, they are not all assigned full-time to GIPSA's financial, trade practice, and competition cases; some have other USDA responsibilities as well. Consequently, very little attorney time is actually dedicated to competition cases, thanks to the low priority this administration has placed on the problem. The GAO Report's recommendations are straightforward. It recommends that GIPSA come up with investigation and case methods, practices and processes for competition-related allegations, in consultation with the DOJ and FTC. It recommends that GIPSA integrate the attorney and economist working relationship, with attorneys at the lead from the beginning of the investigation. It also suggests that USDA might want to report to Congress on the state of the cattle and hog market, as well as on potential violations of the Packers and Stockyards Act. In effect, the GAO provides a blueprint for how GIPSA should be run, and the policies and procedures it should have in place to protect family farmers. So, the GAO is telling us that USDA and GIPSA just haven't gotten their act together to function like a competent agency. And they are recommending that USDA and GIPSA do something that makes common sense-- develop a successful plan, train your people, get guidance from the experts, write effective processes and procedures designed for competition cases, hire antitrust lawyers. Let me give you some more information. Way back in October 1991, the GAO issued another report which determined that, despite increased concentration in the livestock industry, GIPSA's monitoring and analysis were not up to speed to identify anti-competitive practices. Instead, GIPSA still placed its primary emphasis on ensuring prompt and accurate payment to livestock sellers. In 1997, USDA's own Office of Inspector General found that GIPSA needed to make extensive improvements to its Packers and Stockyards Program to live up to its competition responsibilities. The 1997 OIG report found that GIPSA did not have the capability to perform effective anti-competitive practice investigations because it was not properly organized, operated or staffed. It recommended that GIPSA make extensive organizational and resource improvements within the department, as well as employ an approach similar to that used by DOJ and FTC, by integrating attorneys and economists from the beginning of the investigative process. Sound familiar? Because of the large number of complaints about competition in the livestock industry, one would have thought that USDA and the administration would have put addressing competition concerns in every way possible and ensuring the effective functioning of GIPSA at the top of their list. USDA and the administration had clear warnings in the 1991 GAO Report and the 1997 OIG Report that there were significant problems, yet they've been ineffective in addressing them. In fact, USDA agreed with the reports and acknowledged that they needed to reevaluate guidelines and regulations, as well as make appropriate organizational, procedure and resource changes. So why wasn't this done? Why weren't these concerns addressed in an effective manner? Why still all this mismanagement? Why still no guidance, policies or proceures? And now this GAO report raises even more troubling questions. What are USDA's real priorities? Are ag concentration and anti-competitive activity of any concern to the Clinton/Gore administration? How many violations of the Packers and Stockyards Act have slipped through the cracks because of GIPSA's failure to execute its statutory responsibility? My hearing on September 25, next week in my Judiciary Subcommittee, will explore these and other questions. I can already see the finger-pointing to come from USDA. They are going to say they need more time. Well, they've known since 1991 that they had problems, isn't that time enough to fix them? They are going to say that we haven't given them enough money. But the fact is that Congress has increased GIPSA and USDA OGC funding almost every year since 1991. If USDA saw that they needed more antitrust lawyers for their Packers and Stockyards competition cases, they should have dedicated more of their funds to hiring them. The problem is this administration's priorities. The problem is this administration's inability to take responsibility. In any event, it's clear that we can't count on this administration's Agriculture Department to reorganize and fix the problems identified in this GAO report. USDA promised to respond to similar problems identified in the 1991 GAO Report and 1997 OIG report, yet did nothing of any real effect to change the situation. Promises made to farmers and promises broken. It's clear to me that recent movements on the part of USDA to address some of these issues are just another way to deflect criticisms of their failure to act. And my concerns continue to grow. Legislation is necessary to force USDA and GIPSA to do their job. It's obvious that if we leave it to this administration, it will be the same old, same old. And the family farmer will continue to wait for something to happen. USDA has broken too many promises already. No more. My bill, the Packers and Stockyards Enforcement Improvements Act, will require USDA to implement GAO's commonsense recommendations, GAO's blueprint for success. Specifically, my bill will require that, within one year, USDA implement the recommendations of the GAO report, in consultation with DOJ and FTC. My bill will require that, during this one year implementation period, USDA will work with DOJ and FTC to identify anti-competitive violations and take enforcement action under the Packers and Stockyards Act. My bill will require USDA to set up a training program for competition investigations within one year. In addition, my bill will require USDA to provide Congress with a yearly report on the state of the cattle and hog industries and identify activities that represent potential violations under the Packers and Stockyards Act. Finally, my bill will require USDA to report back to Congress within a year on what actions it has taken to comply with this act. This is a good government bill. It doesn't change the authority of USDA to address anti-competitive activity in the livestock industry under the Packers and Stockyards Act. Obviously, there's no need to do that--USDA already has all the authority they need. Instead, my bill does something a lot more fundamental--it makes USDA and GIPSA reorganize, regroup and revamp their Packers and Stockyards program so they can do their job. Hopefully this will help change USDA's failure to take its current statutory responsibilities seriously. It seems to me that this is a recurring theme, the administration not enforcing the laws on the books and then blaming others for their inadequacies. But the report is clear. They are the problem. This GAO report is important because it has identified what the real problem is: USDA and the administration are asleep at the switch. I ask unanimous consent to have my bill printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I rise today to notify my colleagues that I have notified the Majority Leader that I will object to any changes to the False Claims Act whether in bill or amendment form.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, on the occasion of the 75th birthday of Allen Memorial Hospital and the nursing education program of Allen Health System. I would like to congratulate this fine organization. For 75 years Allen Health System has diligently carried out its mission of commitment to healing, teaching, caring, and improving the health of the people and communities it serves. Established in 1925, this organization has, over the years, positively impacted the lives of friends and family in Waterloo/Cedar Falls and surrounding communities of Northeast Iowa. Allen Health System has contributed to the development of healthcare within the community with its high quality of healthcare, professionalism, service and outreach. The contribution of Allen Memorial Hospital and the nursing education program of Allen Health System over the past 75 years is immeasurable and Allen is to be commended for its unwavering commitment to providing healthcare to those it serves. This September 2000, Allen Health System associates and students come together to commemorate the organization's 75th birthday and to further enhance their knowledge and skills related to healthcare, I salute them. The community has been strengthened and enhanced by the work of this organization and the men and women who are part of it.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am here on the floor at this particular time to ask the President of the United States who ``they'' are, and I hope the word ``they'' includes the President of the United States. I hope the President of the United States is the chief ``they.'' I hope we don't get into a position of debating what the definition of the word ``they'' is. The Constitution is pretty clear-- the President of the United States has all the executive power that exists in our Government. That is the background for my visiting with you about the Wen Ho Lee case, the President's comments last week in regard to the release of Wen Ho Lee, and how the executive branch treated this Chinese American. This is the latest instance of President Clinton failing to take responsibility and refusing to hold himself accountable for the actions of his administration. The background of Wen Ho Lee--for those who may not have been following this over the last year--is that the Government has recently agreed to let this former nuclear scientist at Los Alamos Laboratories plead guilty to a relatively minor charge and go home with a slap on the wrist. I think we all agree that his release is the justifiable thing to do. But it was only a short time ago that the executive branch was claiming that Wen Ho Lee was such a serious threat to American national security that he belonged in solitary confinement and in shackles with practically no ability for Mr. Lee to even contact his family. Now, after this long period of time in confinement, he gets a slap on the wrist and his freedom. Obviously, the executive branch of Government couldn't back up its allegations with proof or this case would not have settled as it did. Despite the dire pronouncements made to the public about Wen Ho Lee, the fact is the Government didn't even have a case. It had only suspicions. Mr. Lee has, of course, paid a very high price for the suspicions of some in the executive branch. Maybe because Lee is Asian American, there is not the outcry over the loss of civil liberties that there would be had Lee been a member of some other minority group. The same people who speak up against some minorities being mistreated because of civil liberties evidently don't seem inclined to speak up in the case of an Asian American. Mr. Lee's treatment has caused widespread public outcry. How can this happen in America where we treasure freedom and where the rule of law has been the basis for our country's law going back to the setting up of the colonies? How could the government damage the reputation of a citizen by labeling him as a spy for the Communist Chinese, lock him away for 9 months of solitary confinement, and then just simply drop the case? Our Government has damaged its reputation by the way it handled the Lee case. The American people are outraged. Pundits and political observers have raised legitimate questions about the abusive way in which Mr. Lee was treated by the executive branch of Government. In the midst of this justifiable criticism, President Clinton decided that it was time for him, as President of the United States, to chime in. President Clinton happens to be the Chief Executive Officer of the country. He thinks, like the rest of us, that the executive branch of Government may have abused its power in the way it went after Mr. Lee and kept him confined for such a long period of time. What troubles me about President Clinton's comments is that he acts as if he, as President of the United States, is just some sideline observer who doesn't have anything to do with the way the laws in this country are enforced. As every high school student learned in their civics classes, the executive power of the Government is vested in the President of the United States, article II, section I: The executive power shall be vested in the President of the United States of America. This is pretty simple language and pretty definitive. These words means the President is in charge of law enforcement. The President is in charge of protecting our national security. So, even if the President delegated some of his power to the Attorney General, the President is responsible for what happened to Mr. Lee. I hope the President can just once before he leaves office, and as part of his legacy, say he is responsible for what happened under his watch. I would like to have him say: I and the people I appointed are responsible for what happened to Mr. Lee. But, no. He said in his news conference ``they'' did this--``they'' held him; ``they'' had these charges. It was always ``they,'' ``they,'' ``they.'' I happen to think President Clinton is the chief ``they.'' He is above all the rest of the ``theys.'' It happens that President Clinton seems to think the Justice Department is some agency of government outside of his control. Surely the President knows better than this. The Washington Post certainly does. This past Saturday, the Post editorial page commented on the Wen Ho Lee case: President Clinton asks us to see him as one more commentator troubled by the case, rather than as the head of the government that brought it. In other words, I think the Washington Post is saying the President is, in fact, the chief ``they;'' or he is in charge of all the rest of the ``theys.'' Of course, as far as I am concerned, the Washington Post is right on this point. The nation is waiting for real leadership, not another evasion or more misdirection. President Clinton may be an ``artful dodger,'' but this is one dodge that just won't work. The American people elected President Clinton to be in that office so he could lead, not blame subordinates. The Constitution is crystal clear that the President has the ultimate responsibility of leadership and the ultimate power of our executive branch. It is high time for President Clinton to follow the Constitution and take responsibility for the sorry actions that took place in regard to Mr. Wen Ho Lee during this administration. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the Commerce Committee had an oversight hearing on violence marketed to children by the entertainment industry. This oversight is long overdue. I congratulate Senator McCain for holding such a hearing. The purpose of the hearing was to look at the FTC study that just came out that charged the entertainment industry with marketing of violent films and videos to children. The bottom line is that as we have heard President Clinton and Vice President Gore respond to the FTC rulings, there is an inconsistency in their responses and how they have generally interacted with Hollywood over the last 8 years. I establish as a basis for my remarks some quotes from the various newspapers of the recent month and a half. For instance, on September 12, the Washington Post, commenting on this, said: In separate time zones, but with one message, President Clinton and Vice President Gore delivered a joint threat to the entertainment industry today that harsh regulation could come if the makers of explicit and violent movies, recordings and video games do not stop advertisement at children. I continue to read from the same story in the Washington Post. Later on it says: But Gore has not always appeared consistent on this issue. In 1987, as he was gearing up for his first presidential campaign, Gore and his wife held a meeting with rock music executives in which Gore apologized for his role in a 1985 Senate Commerce Committee hearing on rock music lyrics. A tape of the meeting was obtained by Daily Variety. Tipper Gore, who had testified at the hearing on behalf of the Parents Music Resource Center, called the hearing ``a mistake. . .that sent the wrong message.'' Last year, the Los Angeles Times reported that Gore met privately with potential donors in the entertainment industry in July 1999 and told them the idea for the FTC study-- Which I just referred to-- was Clinton's and not his, and that he was not consulted. Then on August 18, the Chicago Tribune shows an inconsistency in how they react and work with Hollywood at different times. It says: In southern California, records show, Gore and the Democratic National Committee so far have raised $10.3 million--a 13 percent increase--at a time when the DNC's nationwide fundraising pace is lagging behind 1996, when Clinton ran for re-election. Quoting further in the article: Gore generated $443,050 in hard money from the entertainment industry, 86 percent more than Clinton in 1996. He also took in $340,375 from lawyers and lobbyists, a 66 percent increase, and $124,350 from real estate interests, an 82 percent jump. Now I will quote from the August 18 Los Angeles Times. The reference in the headline reads: ``. . .The Vice President is building upon that legacy'' to follow Clinton's close relationship with Hollywood. ``He has already raised more than the President did in '96.'' Later on in that article, referring to a person whom I do not know-- his name is Reiner: But Reiner . . . has expressed greater support for Gore than he had for Clinton. He has hosted fund-raisers for Gore at his home, stumped for him on television and even flew to Ohio to join him at a campaign event last week. A reference to the fact there were Hollywood types campaigning strongly for the Vice President because there was some chagrin in Hollywood, at least for a short period of time, about whether he is a legitimate crusader against Hollywood violence, which Senator Lieberman is, that he was being selected as Vice President. The Los Angeles Times reports on August 17, 2000--and this was Vice President Gore doing this. The effort to blunt any dissent over Lieberman's selection started as word leaked out of his ascension to the ticket. Gore, according to an associate, made a round of soothing calls to Hollywood figures, including moguls Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen. I have already congratulated Senator McCain for holding this hearing. We need to do what we can to stop violence being peddled by Hollywood so our young people do not think it is right to kill anybody. I do think it is wrong for the very people who are carrying on this crusade--the Vice President and the President--schmoozing at the same time they are carrying on this campaign with Hollywood. I want to comment on Vice President Gore's curious interest in criticizing the entertainment industry for producing violent movies, television shows, and video games that promote immorality and attack traditional family values. I do not doubt for 1 minute, as I have already indicated, that Senator Lieberman is very sincere in his views on this matter, but the fact is that the Vice President is at the top of the Democratic ticket, and everyone knows that he will set the real tone should he be elected in November. The fact is that the Vice President has taken a record amount of money from the entertainment industry. I refer, again, to the Chicago Tribune. The Vice President and the Democratic National Committee have raised $10.3 million from southern California as of August this year, a 13 percent increase over 1996, and the Vice President has gotten $443,050 in hard money from the entertainment industry, 86 percent more than President Clinton received in 1996. The Clinton-Gore administration has been a real friend to the Hollywood liberals over the years. I guess all of those campaign contributions have had some effect. I think that when Hollywood producers hear one of their best friends in Washington criticize the entertainment industry, they just look to their ``cozy relationship'' with Clinton-Gore. The Hollywood moguls know Gore does not really mean what he says; at least that is a clear signal. Hollywood knows Gore does not really want to ``rock the boat.'' For instance, how many times at these fundraisers that they had was the opportunity taken to protest the violence coming from Hollywood through their films and their videos? According to the L.A. Times, the Vice President privately told a group of Hollywood donors that he had nothing to do with President Clinton's effort to study whether Hollywood markets violence to children and that he was not consulted on the issue. That was in 1999. But now that the study is out--this study came out this week--Vice President Gore is talking it up and taking credit. The Vice President is acting as if he has not made private promises to his big campaign donors and to Hollywood notables that they should not worry about a crackdown on Hollywood excesses. But we have heard all of this before. In 1988, then-Senator Gore made similar promises after holding hearings into offensive music lyrics. It appears the Vice President will say what he wants to say, what he needs to say, to anybody he needs to say it to, just to get elected. I think the American people will not be fooled by these kinds of bait-and-switch tactics. They know a phony act when they see one. In fact, Hollywood liberals are actively campaigning for the Vice President. For example, according to press reports, stars and movie producers have hosted Gore fundraisers, and some have even stumped for Gore around the country. So much then for standing up to Hollywood as opposed to schmoozing with them. The American people need their leaders to take a genuine interest in building a civil society of which we can all be proud. We need leaders who will make sure children are protected from violence and immorality peddled under the guise of entertainment. What we do not need is the Vice President telling the American people one thing while--with a wink and nod towards Hollywood, towards the big shots of the movie industry--assuring the Hollywood elite he does not mean what he says as he pockets their cold cash. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to talk again about the mess at the Department of Justice. As we all know, this Justice Department has been subjected to criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike for mishandling cases. Yesterday, the Justice Department's own Inspector General completed a lengthy report which points to ``egregious misconduct'' by senior officials in the Justice Department. That phrase ``egregious misconduct'' is not my phrase. That's the conclusion of the IG. This is a sordid story which began in 1997, when I wrote to Attorney General Reno asking her not to fire a whistle blower who had alleged misconduct in two components of DOJ's Criminal Division--The International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program, also known as ``ICITAP'', and the Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training, also known as ``OPDAT''. These offices train prosecutors and police in other countries to enforce laws in a way that respects the rule of law and human rights. As such, these offices are heavy consumers of intelligence from various intelligence gathering agencies that monitor human rights abuses. The IG concluded that some Senior DOJ Officials in these offices intentionally refused to follow Government Regulations regarding the handling of classified information and recommended discipline for three DOJ officials. The allegations I received in 1997 related to serious security breaches as well as the misuse of Government authority for the personal and financial benefit of top DOJ Officials. I was shocked to hear allegations that Bob Bratt, the Executive Officer of the Criminal Division, who had supervisory control over these offices, and Joe Lake who was an assistant to Mr. Bratt, used their Government positions to get visas for Russian women that Brat met through a ``match making service.'' I was shocked to hear allegations that a Senior Justice Official was allowed to retire early with an early retirement bonus, and then be re-hired at DOJ as an outside contractor just a few months later in clear violation of Federal law. But, these all proved to be accurate. To quote the Inspector General's report ``We concluded that Bratt and Lake committed egregious misconduct'' in obtaining visas for Russian women to enter the country under false pretenses. These women had been denied visas in the past and were only given visas when Bratt assured Embassy Officials in Moscow that these women would be working for DOJ in the future. The IG concluded that this was a false statement. The IG concluded that Bratt and Lake offered explanations for their conduct and denials regarding the visas for the Russian women which were ``not credible.'' The IG also concluded that Bratt's ``intimate involvement'' with these Russian women left him vulnerable to blackmail and presented a security concern. The IG report indicates that Bratt may have pressured other DOJ employees to mislead the IG inspectors. And the IG found that Bratt had DOJ computers sent to a school in Virginia where a girlfriend works. Clearly, this is the kind of misconduct which should be exposed and corrected. This is why I work so hard to support whistle blowers when they ask for my help. But it doesn't end there. The IG also concluded that Joe Lake violated Federal Law when he took an early retirement bonus of $ 25,000. One provision of the early retirement program prohibited lake from working for DOJ for 5 years after his retirement. Yet, two months after he retired, Lake was hired as a consultant at DOJ reporting to his old friend Bob Bratt. This was patently illegal, and the IG recommends that DOJ seek the return of lake's $ 25,000 retirement bonus. The IG also noted many of the hiring practices at issue were--to use the IG's own words--``questionable.'' For instance, the IG report described the hiring of a bartender at a local restaurant frequented by the Associate Director of ICITAP. The bartender was originally hired to work at DOJ on a temporary basis. After this bartender-turned- Government lawyer began a personal relationship with Bratt, Bratt hired her on a permanent basis at DOJ. Another example cited by the IG involved an ICITAP official hiring the father of an ex-spouse's step- children even though he had very little experience. Again, the American people deserve better from their Government. The IG report also indicates that Senior Justice officials improperly used frequent flier miles. The IG recommends that security clearances be granted to ICITAP officials only after evaluating their poor record of complying with security regulations. I wrote to the Attorney General on this matter in 1997. It's taken until September of 2000 for DOJ to finish its report. Just last month, Mr. Bratt was allowed to retire from Government service. The IG report indicates that the IG would have recommended that Bratt be fired from the Justice Department if he were still working for DOJ. It seems to me that Senior Justice officials may need to be held accountable for letting Bratt retire rather than face the music for his misdeeds. As Chairman of the Administrative Oversight Subcommittee on the Judiciary Committee, I intend to keep a close eye on the Criminal Division, in light of this sorry Record. Mr. President, this is merely the latest example of how Justice Department is a real mess. We all know that. For the benefit of my colleagues, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the cost of $1,300 an executive summary of the report.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as a co-sponsor of Senator Thompson's legislation on weapons proliferation, I want to tell my colleagues why I will not support this, or any other effort, to amend H.R. 4444, the legislation to authorize the permanent extension of nondiscriminatory trade treatment to the People's Republic of China. First, I want to say that I fully agree with Senator Thompson's goals. He wants to reduce the threat posed to the United States by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. So do I. He wants to curb the transfer of technologies to rogue nations that might destabilize regional security, threaten our allies, or endanger United States forces. And so do I. In my view, this Administration has not done nearly enough to safeguard the United States from the growing threat of nuclear proliferation. You don't have to take my word for it. For anyone who thinks that the weapons anti-proliferation efforts of this administration have been adequate, and that the world is a safer place under the Clinton-Gore team, just take a look at the Cox Commission Report. Or the report of the Rumsfeld Commission. Both of these reports are compelling, and highly disturbing. But, this is neither the time nor the place to deal with these issues. The real issue today is whether we will approve this measure to extend permanent normal trade relations with China, and thereby allow the United States to take advantage of a market-opening trade agreement we helped negotiate. An agreement that will mean new sales, more jobs, and increased prosperity for America's farmers, ranchers, and agricultural producers, our service providers, and our manufacturing sector. I want to make this very clear: A vote to amend PNTR, at this late stage, is a vote against PNTR. If we change so much as one word of this PNTR legislation, it will not be consistent with the legislation passed by the House of Representatives, and will be sent back to that chamber. With less than 20 legislative days to go in this session of Congress, that would kill the PNTR bill for this year. And if PNTR is defeated, China will not suffer. China will still enter the WTO, whether we normalize our trade relations with them or not. If China enters the WTO, and we have not approved permanent normal trade relations status, our farmers, our service providers, our manufacturers will be forced to sit on the sidelines. Our competitors from Europe, Asia, and Canada will have China's market all to themselves. They will win a competitive advantage over us. Perhaps a permanent one. The only ones who would suffer would be our farmers, and our workers. Putting ourselves at this sort of disadvantage will hurt our economy. And it will not help our national security one bit. The problem I have with linking trade with national security, or with human rights, or with any other worthy cause, is that this sort of linkage assumes that we can only do one thing, but not the other. We can either have human rights in China, or we can have free trade. We can either protect our national security, or we can trade with China and jeopardize our security. I believe these assumptions are false. Our relationship with China is complex. It has more than one dimension. And I believe the United States is big enough, smart enough, tough enough, and sophisticated enough to have more than a one-dimensional China policy. We can have an effective human rights policy with China. We can have a tough and effective national security policy. And we can have a trade policy that serves our vital national interests. We can do all of this at the same time, and do it well. But not if we amend this bill and send it back to the House. One last thing. I read this morning that thousands of anti-globalization protesters rioted today at the meeting of the World Economic Forum in Melbourne, Australia. Scores of people were hurt. Almost one quarter of the delegates were locked out of the summit by the rioters. One Australian official was trapped for almost an hour in his vandalized car. Leaders of the riot claimed they were successful in blockading the conference. ``I think we can claim victory tonight'', one of the protest leaders said. The Melbourne riots come right on the heels of similar anti- globalization riots in Davos, Switzerland, Washington, DC, and last December in Seattle. These riots are profoundly disturbing. They appear to be growing in intensity and frequency around the world. And they are terribly misguided. Since the United States helped create the global trading system in 1947, free trade has lifted millions of people out of poverty. As poor nations have gained new prosperity, they have improved the health and education of their citizens. They have invested in new technologies to clean up the environment. And all the nations of the world's trade community have helped keep the peace, even during the bleak days of the Cold War. Today, China is on the verge of rejoining the world trade community it abandoned in 1950. A vote for normalizing China's trade relations with the United States on a permanent basis will reaffirm our support for a member-driven, rules-based trading system. It will highlight the importance of trade as a way to achieve prosperity for all, including the world's poorest nations. And it will repudiate those who would tear down the most successful multilateral trade forum the world has ever known. I urge my colleagues to support a clean PNTR bill, with no amendments.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I don't know whether other colleagues of mine have spoken today on this issue, but I would be surprised if some have not. I have not had an opportunity to hear what anybody else has said. It is with some dismay that we are, once again, faced this year with very high energy costs. The headline that I have in front of me from the Washington Post for today says, ``Oil Prices Hit a Ten-Year High; As Americans Face Costly Winter, U.S. Pressures OPEC on Output.'' In that headline, several things are considered: First of all, we have the highest worldwide energy prices since the gulf war, and the war was responsible for the high oil prices at that particular time-- not OPEC cutting back oil, not bad U.S. domestic energy policy. The other thing that hits us is that the consumer is going to end up paying for this. Both points highlight that this administration has been promising us an energy plan to deal with this crisis situation. Let me be clear on that--an energy plan not for the future but to deal with the immediate crisis. I had an opportunity to write a letter to the administration earlier this summer asking them to put forth a plan to meet potential shortages of fuel oil, propane gas, and natural gas--all used in home heating--so the health of our seniors is not threatened when we get cold weather. I have not had a response to that letter. Nothing of substance has come from my request. I had a chance during the month of July, when Senator Lugar had a hearing before the Agriculture Committee with Secretary of Energy Richardson, to ask questions of Secretary Richardson, and put forth the necessity of his coming forward with just such a plan. Yet nothing has been forthcoming. I should say nothing but what the story in the Post reminds us of--that this Administration's energy policy seems to consist of either the President of the United States or the Energy Secretary getting down on hands and knees to OPEC countries--and they tend to emphasize dealing with the Arab nations on this issue--to please pump more oil, produce more oil, send more oil to the industrialized parts of the world, particularly the United States. That is all we are seeing at this point. That is all we saw last spring from this administration to get the price of energy down--begging the OPEC nations, and particularly the Arab oil-producing nations, to send more oil. That is their response to the crisis. This prompts me to tell my colleagues what I hope I will be able to do tonight as we discuss the energy and water bill. Since I have not had a response to my request to the Energy Secretary when he was before the Senate Agriculture Committee, and since I have not had a response to my letter to the President, as well as a letter to the Energy Secretary, I will be offering an amendment that will ask the administration to get this plan that we have been promised on the table. We need this plan so we can assure the consumers of America, particularly our more vulnerable consumers, the senior citizens, and particularly the most vulnerable senior citizens, those who are living alone, that we have a supply of energy for purchase at any cost. Hopefully the administration will come up with a plan that has a supply of energy that they can afford to pay for, and particularly a plan that doesn't require our senior citizens to choose between energy and food. Also, I think it begs discussion of a bigger issue; that is, where has this administration been for the last 7 years on developing energy? For the most part, we have had a badly damaged oil exploration industry, and we have had workers who work in that industry finding jobs elsewhere. So even if that industry were to perk up and find places to drill and an incentive to drill, there are not enough workers to man the rigs because this administration has had a policy of deemphasizing domestic production. So much of the land in the United States and our continental shelf, has been taken out of bounds for drilling, and in the case of natural gas, where two-thirds of the known supplies are available, there is no drilling where we know it is available under public lands. I know of the concern for the environment. It seems to me we can have a balance between environmental policy and the domestic production of energy. We can have that because it is possible. We can have that because it is a necessity. It is a necessity because we cannot be held hostage by OPEC nations, and we can't be held hostage by Arab oil- producing nations and their leaders who want to put political pressure on the United States when it comes to a peace agreement involving Palestine and Israel, and all those issues that are acquainted with it. We do not have to have military action in the Middle East now as we did at the time of the Persian Gulf war. But if we need to protect our oil, the flow of oil from the Middle East to the United States, we would not be able to put together that armada that we had 9 years ago to stop Saddam Hussein, what he was doing there, and what that caused in the energy situations in this country. That was the last time the energy prices went so high. So we need from this administration a plan of what they are going to do to make sure there are not shortages in this country, what we can do to get the price down. We need that very soon. That is what my amendment will call for that I will offer this evening. We also need a policy of this administration to encourage the domestic production of oil and natural gas that we have available here so we aren't dependent upon OPEC for our sources of oil and natural gas. I hope some of these issues will be discussed in the coming political campaign. I think on our side of the aisle, the Republican Party has a candidate who is well aware of the shortcomings of this administration on energy policy and will take steps, including fossil fuel availability, as well as renewable fuel availability to accomplish those goals. While Governor Bush was campaigning in my State of Iowa during the first-in-the-nation caucuses that we had, I had the opportunity to travel throughout Iowa over the course of 4 or 5 days that I was helping him with his campaign. I had an opportunity to discuss some of these very tough issues and the direction that a new administration could take on renewable fuels such as ethanol, for example, renewable fuel incentives such as wind energy and biomass and tax incentives that are necessary for them to get rapidly started and a balance between renewable fuels and nonrenewable fuels. I am satisfied that not only does the Governor of Texas come from a State where there is an understanding of the importance of fossil fuels--petroleum, natural gas, et cetera--but there is also an understanding that renewable sources of energy are very much an important part of the equation to make sure that the United States is not held hostage to OPEC nations as we see the President of the United States and the Energy Secretary begging OPEC to pump more oil. I think with a new voice for energy independence in the White House, we will not have this very embarrassing situation that we find ourselves in, not just for the first time, but we found ourselves in this position in March, we found ourselves in this position in June when the leaders of this administration were hat in hand dealing with an OPEC organization controlling prices and controlling production, but if they were CEOs of oil companies in this country, doing the same sort of price fixing, they would be in prison. What a spectacle of the President of the United States and the Energy Secretary dealing with these OPEC nations. That is an embarrassing situation. More important than just being embarrassing, it signals a national defense weakness of our country which must be based upon having certain access to energy. If we are going to be strong militarily, we won't have this embarrassment when a new face gets in the White House, if that new face is a person that is committed to the domestic production of energy and committed to renewable sources of energy, and committed to making a point with OPEC that we don't intend to be dependent upon these nations holding us up, particularly after the American taxpayer gave $415 million of foreign aid to OPEC nations for them to use to buy the rope to strangle the American consumer economically and hurt our whole economy in the process. That is exactly what OPEC is doing when the price of our energy, the price of our fuel oil, goes up 30 percent. I hope we have a new day. I want to have a new day. I hope for a new day. A lot of that is what the people decide in the coming election. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I will grant the 2 additional minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. In the first place, I ask unanimous consent, to the amendment I have had filed at the desk that was just accepted, that the additional cosponsors be added of Senators DeWine, Lugar, and Kerrey. I thank Senator Domenici and Senator Reid for accepting the amendment. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce a critically important amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, and I would like to thank Senators Grams, Voinovich, DeWine, Lugar, Kerrey of Nebraska, and Snowe for joining me in this effort. This amendment would require the administration to provide Congress their plan to address the increasing costs in home heating fuels by September 30. Quite frankly, this plan is long overdue. Mr. President, on July 3 of this year, I wrote President Clinton and Energy Secretary Richardson to bring their attention to the ever- increasing price of natural gas. I also shared my concern regarding the inadequacy of natural gas supplies to meet demand through the summer and into this winter. I requested that the President inform me of the actions he planned to take to address the higher-than-normal heating bills my constituents will surely face this winter. Jack Lew, Director of the Office of Management and Budget responded to my letter on July 31. Regrettably, Mr. Lew thanked me for expressing my concerns regarding the increase in fuel costs this past winter. Let me repeat that. In response to my letter about the inadequacy of home heating fuel for the upcoming winter to the President, I received a letter thanking me for my concerns about the increase in fuel costs last winter. Mr. President, it is this type of irresponsible behavior that has led this country into the next energy crisis. Today, natural gas is at a record high near $5.00 per million BTU's, while supplies hover below the five-year average. This 50 percent increase will certainly impact the more than 80 percent of Iowa households which use natural gas to heat their homes. Furthermore, home heating oil is near a 10-year high, at 98 cents per gallon, already 41 percent above the average price last fall and winter. And crude oil remains near a 10-year high. While testifying before the Senate Agriculture Committee on July 20, Secretary Richardson stated that the administration had developed a plan and was in the process of finalizing a plan to address potential home heating oil and natural gas shortages. Mr. Secretary, I have not seen your plan. I want to see the plan. I won't allow the Department of Energy to sit idly by as home heating fuels double. For this reason, I am offering this amendment to require the Department of Energy to provide a report to Congress by September 30, 2000, detailing their plan to address the high cost of home heating oil and natural gas. I believe this amendment will force the administration to take a much more active role in remedying the home heating fuel crisis. Amendments Nos. 4034, 4035, 4036, 4037, 4043, 4051, 4055, 4056, 4058, 4061, 4064, 4079, 4080, 4082, 4092, 4096, and 4112, En Bloc, as Modified