Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 22 at 2:30 p.m. to conduct an oversight hearing. The subcommittee will receive testimony on H.R. 862, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to implement provisions of an agreement conveying title to a distribution system from the United States to the Clear Creek Community Services District; H.R. 992, a bill to convey the Sly Park Dam and Reservoir to the El Dorado Irrigation District, and for other purposes; H.R. 1235, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into contracts with the Solano County Water Agency, California, to use Solano Project facilities for impounding, storage, and carriage of nonproject water for domestic, municipal, industrial, and other beneficial purposes; H.R. 3077, a bill to amend the Act that authorized construction of the San Luis Unit of the Central Valley Project, California to facilitate water transfers in the Central Valley Project; S. 1659, a bill to convey the Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project, the Savage Unit of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program and the Intake Irrigation Project to the appurtenant irrigation districts; and S. 1836, a bill to extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Alabama.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 22, 2000 at 10:15 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Securities of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 22, 2000, to conduct a hearing on ``Trading Places: Markets for Investors.''

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 22, 2000, at 9:30 a.m. on the nomination of Susan Ness to be a commissioner with the Federal Communications Commission.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 22, 2000 at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on the Department of Defense's acquisition reform efforts, the acquisition workforce, logistics contracting and inventory management practices, and the defense industrial base.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 22, 2000 for hearing regarding the Inclusion of a Prescription Drug Benefit in the Medicare Program.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, March 23. I further ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate begin a period of morning business until 11 a.m. with the time equally divided between Senator Craig or his designee and Senator Durbin or his designee, and that Senator Craig be in control of the first half of the time. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Baucus be allotted up to 10 minutes of the time under the control of Senator Durbin.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. For the information of all Senators, at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, the Senate will begin a period of morning business until 11 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 2251, the crop insurance bill. By previous agreement, the Wellstone amendment will be voted on at 11 a.m., with 2 minutes equally divided prior to the vote. Following that vote, the Senate will proceed to a vote on final passage of the bill. Therefore, Senators can expect two back-to-back votes at approximately 11 a.m. During tomorrow's session, the Senate may also begin consideration of any other Legislative or Executive Calendar items cleared for action.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I now ask for the second reading, and I object to my own request.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I understand S. 2267 is at the desk, and I ask that it be read the first time.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation before us. I think the crop insurance legislation before us this evening is very important. It is one of the pieces of legislation that should have been passed in 1996 when we passed the current farm bill. We promised farmers we were not only going to provide a safety net for them, we were also going to do what we could to expand trade, change the tax laws so they could better manage the highs and lows associated with on-farm income, spend more money for research, and provide a crop insurance program that provided a more opportunities to managing risk. We still have not passed the necessary tax legislation. We have not done all we can do to promote trade in American agricultural products. And we have not done all we can to tear down the barriers to trade around the world. There is still a lot that should have been accomplished in 1996 that has not been done, but finally we are able to add one more thing that was promised in 1996. Now 4 years later, we are finally getting it done. What I am refering to is the ability of farmers to protect themselves from natural disasters over which they have no control by insuring for the productivity that they would normally experience in a good year. This legislation will provide farmers in Iowa and across the country sound risk management opportunities that were promised in 1996. As everyone involved in agriculture knows, the weather is an unavoidable risk farmers must deal with every day. The Federal Crop Insurance Program was established to protect farmers from unavoidable risks such as adverse weather, plant disease, and insect infestation. There are two ways to respond. One is through a crop insurance program that farmers can manage and make their own participation decisions. This would be their decision, not my decision. The other way is through disaster relief. The farmer has little control over whether Congress will provide, at the time of a natural disaster, some disaster relief for him. In most instances, Congress has responded. But that makes the individual family farmer a pawn of Washington. His welfare is based upon decisions that Members of Congress might make, which might not provide the relief that is needed. Once again, the 1996 farm bill was meant to give farmers more control over their own destiny, with the proper tools. Crop insurance is one of those proper tools. The agricultural community has recently been subjected to more than just unavoidable natural disasters. My neighbors in Iowa, where my son and I have a family farm have felt the brunt of the world economic crisis and its increased foreign competition and poor trade diplomacy. These factors have led to significant reductions of farm income. Just last year, it was necessary for Congress to provide $8.7 billion in additional assistance to farmers. This was only a short-term fix, not a long-term solution. But it did keep a promise to the family farmers of America that we made in 1996 when we passed a 7-year farm bill. We set aside $43 billion to meet the obligations of the safety net in that farm bill because we thought $43 billion was enough. But nobody anticipated 4 good crop years with record yields, reduced prices, and the Far East financial crisis that reduced our exports. The $43 billion that was set aside for the 7 year farm bill in 1996 was not enough to meet our promise of a smooth transition for farmers and the maintenance of a safety net. Consequently, we had to provide more money. In doing so we kept our commitment to the farmers of America to provide a strong safety net. With the farm economy in the tank and the price of multiple commodities hitting 20-year lows last year, many individuals have decided to lash out against the 1996 farm bill. I would be the first to admit that Government policy was partly responsible for the instability within the agricultural community. But that is not the farm bill. That is a lack of wise International Monetary Fund policy regarding loans to countries whose banks went in the tank, a seemingly passive pursuit of trade opportunities for agriculture, and Congress, for that matter, not giving the President the authority to negotiate. While I have found fault in the past in our inability to pass a substantive crop insurance bill and the administration's failed efforts to open markets for our agricultural commodities, I hope this bill remedies one of those shortcomings. This legislation provides a long-term solution to the agricultural community for risk management which better mediates the unavoidable risks farmers experience. The Congress can do disaster relief with the political exigencies that are involved with that or it can promote risk management. Through this legislation, we are promoting risk management, giving farmers the tools to respond to and control their destiny rather than having Congress involved in the family farmers destiny. This legislation is entitled the Risk Management for the 21st Century Act. It is bipartisan. It will accomplish many of the most important goals requested by my farm constituency. This has been a bipartisan cooperative effort from the beginning because those of us who understand agriculture know this is the right thing to do. Senators Pat Roberts and Bob Kerrey wrote an excellent piece of legislation. Senator Conrad of North Dakota and I, along with Senator Rod Grams and Chairman Domenici of the Budget Committee, worked hard 12 months ago to provide sufficient budgetary authority to fund this blue ribbon reform proposal that is now before us. By adopting this legislation, we will increase the affordability of crop insurance, make the program more flexible and more responsive to changing demands, improve the public-private partnership, provide opportunities for livestock coverage--so that livestock farmers will have the same opportunity to better manage risk as crop producers have had in the past--and last, but certainly not least, equalize subsidies for revenue-based products. This means a lot for my State of Iowa. Eighty-one percent of all corn and soybeans are insured in the State of Iowa; in other words, meaning 81 percent of the acreage that is planted to corn and soybeans is insured. 85 percent of the insured acres are covered by buy-up policies. And 65 percent of the insured acres in Iowa are covered by a revenue insurance product. Iowa has the highest percentage of revenue coverage in the United States. This might reflect the idea that farmers in my home State of Iowa distrust Congress to respond with disaster relief more than farmers in any other State in the Nation. My farmers are taking the bull by the horns, making the independent judgment that each one of the 97,000 farmers in my State has an opportunity to make. They are managing their own risks by purchasing crop insurance and not relying upon the Congress to cover their losses. This bill makes crop insurance more affordable, especially when it comes to revenue products. Iowa farmers will use the improved subsidy formula to benefit from the highest subsidy at the highest level of coverage. The higher levels of coverage will help to support family farmers in poor years and alleviate some of the need for what is becoming an annual economic relief payment. Economic relief payments will only end when we stop losing our foreign market share and increase agricultural exports for the one-third of our agricultural products that we produce beyond the necessity of domestic consumption. If we do not export, we will shut down one-third of our production. By shutting down one-third of our production, we would not only be hurting farm income but obviously endangering our manufacturers. We would be manufacturing fewer John Deere tractors with fewer jobs at ``John Deeres,'' having less market for feed, for seed, fertilizer, and chemicals. There would be less income for farmers to buy products from the retail merchants of the small towns of America, and more of those small businesses in the small towns of America would go out of business. When we talk about the necessity of exporting one-third of our products--because that is what we produce in excess of domestic production--we are talking not only about enhancing the income of the family farmers of America, but we are also showing the ripple effect that positive cash-flow has through the economy of rural America. We must reverse this trend to preserve small businesses and preserve numerous other enterprises in America, including the union jobs at John Deere and other farm manufacturers. This program we have before us won't open new markets abroad for new commodities, but it will stabilize the potential losses my friends and neighbors could experience due to poor exports. This legislation will provide the security necessary to help farmers through lean years so they will be around to experience better prices and increased revenue in the future. We have an opportunity tomorrow at 11 o'clock, when we vote on this bill, to provide the agricultural community with a tool, a very important tool to better manage the risks inherent in farming. Improving the Crop Insurance Program and ensuring that quality coverage is more affordable and better suited to the needs of farmers will only serve to provide much needed stability in rural America, not just stability among the family farms. While we have more to accomplish to guarantee stability for the family farmer, this is a very important first step, a step that should have been accomplished in 1996 but wasn't. In so doing, it would have provided the farm bill more of the safety net as we promised. Today we are taking an important additional step. I appreciate the opportunity of fulfilling some of the unfulfilled promises made in 1996, to make the 1996 farm bill the landmark measure it was meant to be. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Kennedy, Jeffords and Harkin in introducing the Family Opportunity Act of 2000. This new legislation will make life easier for many families and their children. When you're a parent, your main objective is to provide for your child to the best of your ability. If it takes a 12-hour day in the field or in the factory, that's what you do. Our federal government takes this goal and turns it upside down for parents of children with special health care needs. The government forces these parents to choose between family income and their children's health care. That's a terrible choice. Families must have a low income to qualify their children for both Medicaid and federal disability benefits. This means parents often refuse jobs, pay raises and overtime just to preserve access to Medicaid for their child with disabilities. Families have to remain in poverty just to keep Medicaid. Obviously this affects entire families, not just the child with the health care needs. Melissa Arnold, an Iowan, has a 17-year-old son who can't work even part-time for fear of jeopardizing his brother's Medicaid coverage. Ms. Arnold has accepted several promotions without the pay raises she's earned. Despite these challenges, this family has stayed together. In the worst cases, parents give up custody of their child with special health care needs or put their child in an out-of-home placement just to keep their child's access to Medicaid-covered services. Why is Medicaid so desirable? It's critical to the well-being of children with multiple medical needs. It covers a lot of services that these children need, such as physical therapy and medical equipment. Private health plans often are much more limited in what they cover. Many parents can't afford needed services out-of-pocket. Today, my colleagues and I will introduce legislation to fix the Catch-22 for parents of children with disabilities. Our bill, the Family Opportunity Act of 2000, creates a state option to allow working parents who have a child with a disability to keep working and to still have access to Medicaid for their child. Parents would pay for Medicaid coverage on a sliding scale. No one would have to become impoverished or stay impoverished to secure Medicaid for a child. Our bill also establishes family-to-family health information centers. These centers would be staffed by actual parents of children with special needs as well as professionals. They would provide information to families trying to arrange health services for their children. The Family Opportunity Act of 2000 is modeled after last year's successful Work Incentives Improvement Act. Under that law, adults with disabilities can return to work and not risk losing their health care coverage. Parents of children with disabilities should have the same opportunities as adults with disabilities. Everybody wants to use their talents to the fullest potential, and every parent wants to provide as much as possible for his or her children. The government shouldn't get in the way.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Kennedy, Jeffords and Harkin in introducing the Family Opportunity Act of 2000. This new legislation will make life easier for many families and their children. When you're a parent, your main objective is to provide for your child to the best of your ability. If it takes a 12-hour day in the field or in the factory, that's what you do. Our federal government takes this goal and turns it upside down for parents of children with special health care needs. The government forces these parents to choose between family income and their children's health care. That's a terrible choice. Families must have a low income to qualify their children for both Medicaid and federal disability benefits. This means parents often refuse jobs, pay raises and overtime just to preserve access to Medicaid for their child with disabilities. Families have to remain in poverty just to keep Medicaid. Obviously this affects entire families, not just the child with the health care needs. Melissa Arnold, an Iowan, has a 17-year-old son who can't work even part-time for fear of jeopardizing his brother's Medicaid coverage. Ms. Arnold has accepted several promotions without the pay raises she's earned. Despite these challenges, this family has stayed together. In the worst cases, parents give up custody of their child with special health care needs or put their child in an out-of-home placement just to keep their child's access to Medicaid-covered services. Why is Medicaid so desirable? It's critical to the well-being of children with multiple medical needs. It covers a lot of services that these children need, such as physical therapy and medical equipment. Private health plans often are much more limited in what they cover. Many parents can't afford needed services out-of-pocket. Today, my colleagues and I will introduce legislation to fix the Catch-22 for parents of children with disabilities. Our bill, the Family Opportunity Act of 2000, creates a state option to allow working parents who have a child with a disability to keep working and to still have access to Medicaid for their child. Parents would pay for Medicaid coverage on a sliding scale. No one would have to become impoverished or stay impoverished to secure Medicaid for a child. Our bill also establishes family-to-family health information centers. These centers would be staffed by actual parents of children with special needs as well as professionals. They would provide information to families trying to arrange health services for their children. The Family Opportunity Act of 2000 is modeled after last year's successful Work Incentives Improvement Act. Under that law, adults with disabilities can return to work and not risk losing their health care coverage. Parents of children with disabilities should have the same opportunities as adults with disabilities. Everybody wants to use their talents to the fullest potential, and every parent wants to provide as much as possible for his or her children. The government shouldn't get in the way.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation being discussed today to be more fair to our senior citizens, to encourage them to work. I hope final passage will be voted on tomorrow. I always like to follow the Senator from Florida because it gives me an opportunity to thank him for the cooperation he has given me in our work on some of the other legs of the retirement income stool. We think of Social Security as one of those, another is savings, and the other one is pensions. He and I have worked closely together in a bipartisan way to formulate pension legislation to encourage savings, to encourage employers to have established pension systems, and particularly to encourage the self-employed and smaller corporations to set up pension systems. So I thank him for that. This legislation might not be considered part of the three-legged stool we always talk about of income security for retirement--Social Security, pensions, and private savings--but it is an opportunity for people who want to work, to work without penalty. That obviously is a very strong component, and heretofore there has been a disincentive to that activity. This eliminates that disincentive. If I could sum up, I see at least two perspectives to this legislation. One, as a matter of public policy in America, we should not have disincentives to productivity. Obviously, when you earn over a certain amount of money as a senior citizen drawing Social Security and you have to pay back $1 out of every $3, that is a disincentive to work. We ought to eliminate that disincentive. A second factor is to judge people in American society on the basis of their competence and their merit and not on the basis of some arbitrary age, based on a policy that was thought good for the 1930s. Today we would not think it was good even for the 1930s. It does not consider people's competence because the policy that was set up 65 years ago was, when you got to be 65, you were shoved out into the street to make room for younger people to come into the workforce. That was wrong. The third thing about this legislation is the high rate of taxation. People who earn over this amount of money have to pay back $1 out of every $3 they earn over a certain amount. That is a very high marginal tax rate, maybe the highest marginal tax rate of any American. Consider, if you earn over $17,000, you pay back $1 out of every $3. Consider also that you are already reporting, if you are earning over a certain income, 85 percent of your Social Security to be taxed a second time. It was taxed when you earned it in your working years; then consider that you pay income tax; then, last, you pay the same payroll tax everybody else pays. You can get such high marginal tax rates that it is almost a laugh to call it taxation. You should call it confiscation. Confiscation of resources in our system of government is not legitimate. It is a disincentive to productivity. At a time in our Nation's history when we are experiencing unprecedented prosperity, we are also experiencing a shortage of experienced labor. The national unemployment rate is 4.1 percent, the lowest level in 30 years. In my home State of Iowa, it is even lower. Iowa's unemployment rate is 2.2 percent. The legislation we are debating would help alleviate some of the skilled labor shortage by removing a disincentive for older Americans to remain in the workforce if they, of their own free will, want to stay in the workforce. The bill before us would eliminate the cap on earnings for Social Security beneficiaries between the ages of 65 and 69. Under current law, those beneficiaries have their benefits cut by $1 for every $3 they earn over that $17,000. I have already referred to that. This benefit cut applies, of course, only to earned income. An individual could still have savings, or income from pensions, totaling any amount and continue to collect full Social Security benefits. The difference between earned and so-called unearned income does not detract from the injustice of the current Social Security and tax policy. That is why this law must be repealed. It sends a wrong message that productivity among our older citizens should be discouraged. I would like to give some examples of people from whom I have heard in my own State who are hurt by this earnings limit. A person by the name of Delaine Jones is working in Glenwood, IA. He is 65 years old. He understands he may live for another couple of decades and may not always be able to work. He would like to earn as much as he can while he is able to, so he can financially prepare for a high quality of life later in his life. Then we have Sherman and Nancy Sorem of Marshalltown, IA. They were affected by the earnings limit last year. Sherman worked for 35 years for Fisher Controls, a major corporation in Marshalltown, IA. When that corporation downsized, he retired from his position as office manager of the accounting department. However, because of his expertise, he was called back each year to help out and to advise and consult with the department. Last year, Fisher Controls needed his expertise for a longer period of time than ever before. Unfortunately, Mr. Sorem could not continue working because he would have worked long enough to earn above the earnings limit. He and Nancy were frustrated. He could not justify losing his Social Security benefits by his continued work. Ron Ballinger, a third person I have heard from, works for a financial processing company in Cedar Rapids, IA. He worked full time last year and was interested in working part time this year. However, he will have to officially retire in April because he will have earned up to the cap on earnings. According to the Social Security Administration, almost 800,000 older Americans nationwide have their benefits cut because of the earnings limit. Mr. President, 800,000 people face the same issue as the three Iowans to whom I have referred. Keep in mind, that statistic does not reveal anything about how many of our older citizens do not remain in or go back to the workforce at all because they cannot afford a cut in benefits. I have received letters and phone calls from all over Iowa and all over the country because in my position as chairman of the Senate Aging Committee, they write to me about their concerns even though I am not their Senator. These letters and phone calls are from older people discouraged by the earnings limit. Their hard-earned Social Security benefits are cut by $1 for every $3 they earn. They see it as a tax on their continued productivity. I see it as unfair and, if I might say, even un-American. This very country of ours, particularly at this time of low unemployment, and particularly when you consider the globalization of our economy, needs skilled labor, skilled workers, people who are skilled because of a lifetime of work in a certain profession. What happens if we do not fill that skilled labor void? We lose productivity. Then we lose our global competitive edge. Where can we look for skilled labor? We have qualified people who want to work, our older citizens. We cannot afford to lose their expertise and skills. A letter I received from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce states: American business is facing a severe worker shortage in many sectors and areas of the country. Jobs are going unfilled, especially those positions that require skilled workers. By removing the disincentive to work, this legislation allows seniors to apply their lifetime of valuable knowledge and experience to the business world and fill some of these positions. Recognizing the need to encourage seniors to remain in the workforce is not a new idea. In fact, a report on Future Directions for Aging Policy was published in May of 1980 by the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aging, the Subcommittee on Human Services. At that time, I happened to serve as ranking Republican on that subcommittee when I was a Member of the other body. I would like to read from the Future Directions for Aging Policy from 21 years ago. I refer to page 3 of the report summary: At the base of such a service approach must lie an economic strategy. We have sketched such an economic base in Appendix 5. It is designed to coalesce around work and income. Tomorrow's seniors will want to work (trends toward early retirement are already reversing according to a recent Lou Harris poll), will be capable of working, and will need to work. I remind you, this was 20 years ago that Congress said this. Inflation's effect on fixed incomes will see to that. Public policy will have to create opportunities to work, both by removing barriers of age discrimination and by stimulating private sector employment of seniors. Moreover, income earned will have to be preserved for much longer than ever before, necessitating major reforms of America's pension systems. That is something I have referred to that the Senator from Florida and I have been working on, as well. Social Security and Supplemental Security Income, because these are the backbone of our present economic strategy, will probably have to be restructured in the future. I think we have known for a long time that what we are finally about to do must be done. I am glad it is being done. The earnings test, enacted as part of the original Social Security Act passed in 1935, is outdated. Sixty years ago, our country was in the midst of a depression. One in five people eligible to work was unemployed. The original law meant to discourage older Americans who were eligible to collect benefits from taking jobs younger people could fill. But that situation has changed-- as unjustified as it was at the time--so our public policy today needs to be changed. Because of my position as chairman of the Aging Committee, more acutely than others, I recognize the changing role of senior citizens in our society. This generation of older Americans has different responsibilities than past generations. We have seen a sharp rise in the number of grandparents who are raising their grandchildren. Furthermore, it is far more common for people to live into their eighties and nineties. Some of these very old Americans depend on their children who are often in their sixties to help care for them and pay for their at-home expenses, medical bills, groceries, and a host of other expenses. Eliminating the Social Security earnings limit will help raise the standard of living for these families. While fixing this inequity in the retirement system will give fair treatment to those ages 65 to 69 who have paid into the program during their working years, I do not stand here and say that it is going to address Social Security's long-term demographic challenges. When the baby boom generation comes on board, the revenue and benefit structure will not be able to sustain the obligations under current law. That is why I have worked with six of my Senate colleagues-- Senators Judd Gregg, Bob Kerrey, John Breaux, Fred Thompson, Craig Thomas, and Chuck Robb--to craft bipartisan Senate reform legislation. Our bill, the Bipartisan Social Security Act, which happens to be S. 1383, is the only reform legislation which has been put forth in the Senate which would make the Social Security trust fund permanently solvent--meaning, as you have to look out 75 years, under existing law, to project its solvency, our legislation has been declared to accomplish that by the General Accounting Office. In fact, it is the only one before the Congress that does that. I will continue to press ahead and work to build a consensus among our colleagues to save Social Security and achieve long-term solvency for generations to come. We, as a Congress, must recognize that even in this era of surpluses--meaning budget surpluses--there are serious long-term financial problems facing Social Security. These problems do not go away because we have a surplus and a good economy. The longer we wait to address reform of Social Security, the more difficult the problems will be to address, and the less time the baby boom generation will have to prepare. As a nation, we have an evolving definition of what it means to be old. Americans are living longer and in better health. The traditional retirement age comes too soon for older people who want to or need to work past age 65. Some people want to retire; some people want to leave the workforce. Obviously, this legislation does not affect that decision of theirs. They can still do it. But if you want to contribute, if you want to remain productive, if you want to be in the workforce, by golly, through this legislation, we say we would love to have you do that. We remove economic disincentives to your doing that that are presently in the law. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise today to commend Tunisia on its 44 years of independence and to congratulate the people of Tunisia on their many successful endeavors. In 1997, Tunisia and the United States celebrated the bicentennial of the ``Treaty of Peace and Friendship.'' This celebration marked the longest unbroken friendship treaty in the history of the two countries. Throughout our long relationship, the United States and Tunisia have experienced cooperation based upon respect and mutual commitment to freedom, democracy, and the peaceful resolution of conflict. Tunisia has been a leader in promoting stability and peace in Africa and the Middle East. It was the first Arab state to host an Israeli delegation and hold a multilateral meeting promoting peace. In 1996, Tunisia and Israel opened interest sections in each country and established full diplomatic relations. In addition to supporting peace in the Middle East, Tunisia has made impressive economic strides. The people of Tunisia enjoy a high standard of living, and the country has successfully graduated from development assistance to self-sufficiency. These improvements have come about through the devotion of vital resources to the promotion of its people, education, and economic reform. Tunisia's market-oriented economy has flourished under increasingly privatized companies. And, Tunisia's membership in the World Trade Organization is indicative of its willingness to engage the world and maintain involvement with other nations. Tunisia has been a friend and ally to the United States for many years. I look forward to continued cooperation and friendship in the years to come. As Tunisia celebrates its 44th Anniversary of Independence, I offer my sincere congratulations on their many successful accomplishments.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as most of my colleagues know, agriculture is one of the most crucial industries to my State, Iowa. The small, independent family farmer is a common thread running throughout the cultural, economic and social fabric of my State. I firmly believe that if that thread is pulled, the entire fabric of Iowa could come unraveled. All my life I have lived and worked on a farm. I recognize that Iowa and the world are changing and that agriculture cannot stagnate and stay the same decade after decade. If we are to continue to survive and thrive into the 21st century, Iowa must diversify and adapt. But the best way to do that is not by throwing away the past and the present. The best way to prepare for the future is to build on the best of our heritage. And the family farmer is one of the best things about Iowa's heritage. I am committed to preserving and supporting this valuable member of Iowa's communities. Any farmer knows that agriculture is a risky business. If you are going to be a farmer, you had better be prepared for ups and downs. But farmers feel more vulnerable now than at just about any time I can recall and with good reason. We all know there's been a so-called ``merger-mania'' going on throughout our nation's economy. Large corporations are joining forces with other large corporations to form new business giants in every sector of the economy and agriculture is no exception. In the last couple of years, the AG industry has seen a significant number of multi-million and multi-billion dollar mergers affecting grain and livestock. In the face of all these mergers and new alliances, the independent producer farming a thousand acres or less, sees himself getting smaller and smaller in comparison to many of his competitors. He sees himself having fewer and fewer choices of who to buy from and sell to. Yet, those farmers know, as I do, that the independent farmer is one of the most efficient businessmen in our nation's economy. That's why the United States can feed itself and a good portion of the world. So long as the market place is fair and open, the family farmer can compete. I am not suggesting that all mergers are in and of themselves wrong or unfair to family farmers. Businesses may be in situations where their survival and success is dependent on joining forces with another. That right is a fundamental principle of a capitalist system and has to be preserved. Indeed, I believe that farmers do not need to be protected from the marketplace. But I believe we should protect their access to the marketplace. That is why I will be introducing legislation to guarantee greater openness and accountability to the merger review process as it pertains to agri-business. My bill will give USDA, the Federal department with the background and expertise in agriculture, a more prominent role in assessing AG mergers. Furthermore, my bill will provide a much-needed balance in the focus of AG merger reviews. Currently, when the Department of Justice assesses a proposed merger, their focus is weighted towards the impact a merger would have on consumers. No one, certainly not I, would argue against ensuring that a merger does not harm consumers. However, given the fact that AG mergers, more so than other kinds of mergers, impact a way of life, not just an industry, it is critical that we give equal importance to the effect these mergers have on producers. My bill will do just that by requiring USDA to do an assessment of how a proposed corporate union will affect producers and their access to the market. My bill will keep DOJ in the driver's seat on mergers, but will make the expertise and knowledge of USDA a prominent part of the merger review record. I am aware other proposals reforming the agri-business merger review process are being crafted. I am certainly willing to consider all suggested reforms. Nonetheless, I believe my bill is strong and balanced in several respects. As I mentioned, my bill provides a heightened role for USDA in the merger review process, giving producers a seat at the table when mergers and acquisitions are being reviewed by DOJ or FTC. In addition, I would like to highlight the following provisions in my bill. There is a requirement that USDA do a merger review that focuses on the needs of producers and whether the transaction would cause substantial harm to farmers' ability to compete in the marketplace. This review will be conducted simultaneously with the Hart-Scott-Rodino review now done by DOJ. There is no disruption in the current DOJ/FTC merger review process. My legislation allows for negotiations between USDA and the parties to a proposed merger in order to work out any concerns USDA has. Under my bill, if USDA's concerns are not satisfied, USDA may challenge the merger in court to either stop the merger or impose conditions on the transaction. Furthermore, this measure calls for the creation of a special counsel in USDA for competition matters, which is subject to Senate consideration. My bill provides money for additional staff at USDA and DOJ. This measure also prohibits the enforcement of confidentiality clauses in livestock production contracts that prevent producers from getting the advice they need to make business decisions in their best interests. My bill provides contract poultry growers the same protections under GIPSA that other livestock producers have. Finally, under my bill, the competition protection authorities of USDA's packers and stockyards division is extended to include anticompetitive practices by dealers, processors and commission merchants of all AG commodities. Several components of this bill are based on proposals by the American Farm Bureau, the largest organization representing producers of all commodities. I believe that bringing to the table a greater understanding of AG producers' needs when examining AG mergers is the biggest missing element to make the merger review process as fair as possible. Closing this gap is the heart of my proposal. I realize that DOJ currently has consultations with USDA on AG mergers. But I believe the current process is not consistent or open enough to assure producers' their concerns are adequately addressed. The approach I advocate will ensure that producers' concerns and needs are fully discussed when Federal agencies examine proposed AG business mergers. By guaranteeing inclusion and openness for small, independent producers, we can go a long way toward alleviating their understandable anxiety. As my colleagues from rural states know, AG concentration is one of the most important issues in agriculture today. It is imperative that we make meaningful progress on this issue before this Congress adjourns. As I stated earlier, I am aware of other efforts, principally by Senator Daschle and Senator Leahy, to craft a legislative response to the recent wave of AG mergers. I commend them for their hard work and I appreciate their efforts to keep me informed of their progress. I did not feel I could offer my unreserved endorsement of the proposal they have crafted thus far and I have chosen to introduce my own bill. However, I believe our proposals are close enough in scope, direction and intent that we can achieve a bipartisan compromise sooner rather than later. I want it to be clearly understood that it is my desire to work with Members from both sides of the aisle to calm farmers' fears about high levels of AG concentration. I am certain Congress will need to take additional steps to secure the freedom of small producers to compete in the marketplace. But my bill will assure that when AG mergers are given the necessary review, the small, independent family farmer who I am proud to serve, will not be left out. I urge my colleagues to join me in holding the door open for farmers across the country and I ask for the support of all those who want to preserve the best of our Nation's agriculture heritage and ensure the superiority of U.S. Agriculture for decades to come.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as most of my colleagues know, agriculture is one of the most crucial industries to my State, Iowa. The small, independent family farmer is a common thread running throughout the cultural, economic and social fabric of my State. I firmly believe that if that thread is pulled, the entire fabric of Iowa could come unraveled. All my life I have lived and worked on a farm. I recognize that Iowa and the world are changing and that agriculture cannot stagnate and stay the same decade after decade. If we are to continue to survive and thrive into the 21st century, Iowa must diversify and adapt. But the best way to do that is not by throwing away the past and the present. The best way to prepare for the future is to build on the best of our heritage. And the family farmer is one of the best things about Iowa's heritage. I am committed to preserving and supporting this valuable member of Iowa's communities. Any farmer knows that agriculture is a risky business. If you are going to be a farmer, you had better be prepared for ups and downs. But farmers feel more vulnerable now than at just about any time I can recall and with good reason. We all know there's been a so-called ``merger-mania'' going on throughout our nation's economy. Large corporations are joining forces with other large corporations to form new business giants in every sector of the economy and agriculture is no exception. In the last couple of years, the AG industry has seen a significant number of multi-million and multi-billion dollar mergers affecting grain and livestock. In the face of all these mergers and new alliances, the independent producer farming a thousand acres or less, sees himself getting smaller and smaller in comparison to many of his competitors. He sees himself having fewer and fewer choices of who to buy from and sell to. Yet, those farmers know, as I do, that the independent farmer is one of the most efficient businessmen in our nation's economy. That's why the United States can feed itself and a good portion of the world. So long as the market place is fair and open, the family farmer can compete. I am not suggesting that all mergers are in and of themselves wrong or unfair to family farmers. Businesses may be in situations where their survival and success is dependent on joining forces with another. That right is a fundamental principle of a capitalist system and has to be preserved. Indeed, I believe that farmers do not need to be protected from the marketplace. But I believe we should protect their access to the marketplace. That is why I will be introducing legislation to guarantee greater openness and accountability to the merger review process as it pertains to agri-business. My bill will give USDA, the Federal department with the background and expertise in agriculture, a more prominent role in assessing AG mergers. Furthermore, my bill will provide a much-needed balance in the focus of AG merger reviews. Currently, when the Department of Justice assesses a proposed merger, their focus is weighted towards the impact a merger would have on consumers. No one, certainly not I, would argue against ensuring that a merger does not harm consumers. However, given the fact that AG mergers, more so than other kinds of mergers, impact a way of life, not just an industry, it is critical that we give equal importance to the effect these mergers have on producers. My bill will do just that by requiring USDA to do an assessment of how a proposed corporate union will affect producers and their access to the market. My bill will keep DOJ in the driver's seat on mergers, but will make the expertise and knowledge of USDA a prominent part of the merger review record. I am aware other proposals reforming the agri-business merger review process are being crafted. I am certainly willing to consider all suggested reforms. Nonetheless, I believe my bill is strong and balanced in several respects. As I mentioned, my bill provides a heightened role for USDA in the merger review process, giving producers a seat at the table when mergers and acquisitions are being reviewed by DOJ or FTC. In addition, I would like to highlight the following provisions in my bill. There is a requirement that USDA do a merger review that focuses on the needs of producers and whether the transaction would cause substantial harm to farmers' ability to compete in the marketplace. This review will be conducted simultaneously with the Hart-Scott-Rodino review now done by DOJ. There is no disruption in the current DOJ/FTC merger review process. My legislation allows for negotiations between USDA and the parties to a proposed merger in order to work out any concerns USDA has. Under my bill, if USDA's concerns are not satisfied, USDA may challenge the merger in court to either stop the merger or impose conditions on the transaction. Furthermore, this measure calls for the creation of a special counsel in USDA for competition matters, which is subject to Senate consideration. My bill provides money for additional staff at USDA and DOJ. This measure also prohibits the enforcement of confidentiality clauses in livestock production contracts that prevent producers from getting the advice they need to make business decisions in their best interests. My bill provides contract poultry growers the same protections under GIPSA that other livestock producers have. Finally, under my bill, the competition protection authorities of USDA's packers and stockyards division is extended to include anticompetitive practices by dealers, processors and commission merchants of all AG commodities. Several components of this bill are based on proposals by the American Farm Bureau, the largest organization representing producers of all commodities. I believe that bringing to the table a greater understanding of AG producers' needs when examining AG mergers is the biggest missing element to make the merger review process as fair as possible. Closing this gap is the heart of my proposal. I realize that DOJ currently has consultations with USDA on AG mergers. But I believe the current process is not consistent or open enough to assure producers' their concerns are adequately addressed. The approach I advocate will ensure that producers' concerns and needs are fully discussed when Federal agencies examine proposed AG business mergers. By guaranteeing inclusion and openness for small, independent producers, we can go a long way toward alleviating their understandable anxiety. As my colleagues from rural states know, AG concentration is one of the most important issues in agriculture today. It is imperative that we make meaningful progress on this issue before this Congress adjourns. As I stated earlier, I am aware of other efforts, principally by Senator Daschle and Senator Leahy, to craft a legislative response to the recent wave of AG mergers. I commend them for their hard work and I appreciate their efforts to keep me informed of their progress. I did not feel I could offer my unreserved endorsement of the proposal they have crafted thus far and I have chosen to introduce my own bill. However, I believe our proposals are close enough in scope, direction and intent that we can achieve a bipartisan compromise sooner rather than later. I want it to be clearly understood that it is my desire to work with Members from both sides of the aisle to calm farmers' fears about high levels of AG concentration. I am certain Congress will need to take additional steps to secure the freedom of small producers to compete in the marketplace. But my bill will assure that when AG mergers are given the necessary review, the small, independent family farmer who I am proud to serve, will not be left out. I urge my colleagues to join me in holding the door open for farmers across the country and I ask for the support of all those who want to preserve the best of our Nation's agriculture heritage and ensure the superiority of U.S. Agriculture for decades to come.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, long-term tax credits may seem like a dull topic. But the expenses of caring for an ailing family member are shocking. Millions of people bear these expenses every day, without any help. Here's a typical example: A state legislator from Ohio named Barbara Boyd testified before my Special Committee on Aging last year. Ms. Boyd cared at home for her mother who had Alzheimer's disease and breast cancer. Her mother had $20,000 in savings and a monthly Social Security check. That went quickly. Prescription drugs alone ran $400 a month. Antibiotics, ointments to prevent skin breakdown, incontinence supplies and other expenses cost hundreds of dollars a month. Ms. Boyd exhausted her own savings to care for her mother, and exhausted herself. She isn't complaining. Family caregivers don't complain. But we can and should use the tax code to ease their burden. Yesterday a bipartisan group of legislators, and two prominent groups--AARP and the Health Insurance Association of America, announced a consensus agreement on a legislative package to help people with a variety of long-term care needs. Our bill contains a tax deduction to encourage individuals to buy long-term care insurance. We want to help people to prepare for their health needs in retirement. The bill also contains a $3,000 tax credit for family caregivers caring for a disabled relative at home. Under this legislation, Ms. Boyd's mother could have purchased long-term care insurance long before she developed Alzheimer's. In addition, Ms. Boyd could have used the tax credit to help with the costs of the medications and medical supplies for her mother. I'm pleased that we have so much agreement in Washington about helping people with long-term care expenses. The legislators sponsoring this legislation have pushed for long-term care relief for years. Today, my colleagues and I will introduce this bill. We'll work to get it passed into law as soon as possible. An aging nation has no time to waste in preparing for long-term care. Family caregivers need immediate relief from their expensive and exhausting work. Joining me in introducing this bill is Senator Bob Graham of Florida, Representative Nancy Johnson, and Representative Karen Thurman.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my Illinois colleague, Senator Fitzgerald, as a cosponsor of his legislation banning MTBE. MTBE contaminates water, and it has been found in water throughout the United States. With every day that passes, more water is being contaminated. Oddly enough, we have passed a clean air bill to clean up the air, and the oil companies have used a product to meet the requirements of the clean air bill that contaminates the water. But there is an additive to the gasoline that will clean up the air as well as not contaminate the water. I will talk about that in just a minute. It is simple: With every day that passes, more water is being contaminated. Last August, the Senate soundly passed a resolution that I cosponsored with Senator Boxer of California calling for an MTBE ban. In the face of damaging, irresponsible action by the Clinton administration, it is time we put some force to our Senate position. How long must Americans suffer this dilatory charade by President Clinton's administration, also by the petroleum industry, and particularly by California officials? I say California officials because they have asked that the Clean Air Act of 1990 be gutted. I have intentionally held my fire until after the California primary because I would not want anyone to misconstrue my motives in an attempt to undermine Vice President Gore's political ambitions. But today I think it is time to say it as it really is: President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and the Environmental Protection Agency's Administrator, Carol Browner, have been dragging their feet--and dragging their feet too long. They gave the oil and the MTBE industry everything they wanted. At the request of big oil, they threw out regulations proposed by President Bush which would have, by some estimates, tripled and even quadrupled ethanol production. This was done on the first day of the Clinton administration. Instead, when they finally got around to putting some rules out, the administration approved regulations that guaranteed a virtual MTBE monopoly in the reformulated gasoline market. This decision by the Clinton administration, way back then in the early part of the administration, opened wide the door for petroleum companies to use MTBE and thus contaminate our water. With egg on its face, with an environmental disaster on its hands, the Clinton administration continues to delay and also duck its leadership responsibilities. A replacement for MTBE exists today, but most oil companies refuse to use it. The Environmental Protection Agency's Director, Carol Browner, has been told time and time again, in every imaginable way possible, how MTBE can be replaced, and in California totally replaced this very day. But she, as other Clinton-Gore officials, always seems to come up with some sort of excuse, a reason for delay, some other hurdle. Last week, as the congressional delegation met with our Governor from Iowa, we were told that Carol Browner asked for more information on this subject about the supply of an alternative to MTBE--which is ethanol--that she needed more information. It happens to be information that the Environmental Protection Agency already has. The new hurdle she is creating is the question: Is there enough of this alternative, ethanol? You might ask: Enough for what? To replace all MTBE today or tomorrow? That is kind of insulting. It is also incredible. I want to illustrate how it is insulting and incredible with this point. Imagine the following: You have a brush fire sweeping to the city's edge, devouring home after home. Panicked citizens call 911, but the fire engines remain silent. The home owners scream to the fire department: Why won't you come to our rescue? The fire chief says: We don't have enough water to save the whole city, and until we can save all, we will save none. It is absurd. Of course it is. Yet an equally absurd and dangerous line has been drawn by most California big oil companies and their political apologists. In the face of the largest environmental crisis of this generation--which is the contamination of water by the petroleum companies' controlled product, MTBE--Californians are being held hostage, forced to buy water-contaminating, MTBE-laced gasoline, even though a superior MTBE replacement is available, and available this very day--not tomorrow, not next year, but today. California Governor Davis' so-called ``ban'' allows MTBE to be sold ``full bore, business-as-usual'' until the end of the year 2002. Worse yet, California legislators dropped the deadline altogether. But why the wait? Well, we are told there is not enough of this MTBE alternative and thus the illogical decree imposed: No MTBE will be removed until all MTBE is removed. And with every day that passes, more of our water is contaminated. Think of this: A mere teacup of MTBE renders undrinkable 5 million gallons of water. CBS's ``60 Minutes,'' referred to by my colleague from Illinois, reported California has already identified 10,000 ground water sites contaminated by MTBE and that ``one internal study conducted by Chevron found that MTBE has contaminated ground water at 80 percent of the 400 sites that the company tested.'' Yet big oil holds you hostage, forcing you to buy MTBE-laced gasoline until either the Clinton-Gore administration or Congress guts one of the most successful Clean Air Act programs, the reformulated gasoline oxygenate requirement. So big oil is hoping that gullible bureaucrats and politicians conclude that MTBE is not the real problem but, instead, the real problem happens to be the oxygenate provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act. Get rid of the oxygenate requirement and, presto, MTBE disappears. People in my State are not buying that line. Iowa has no oxygenate requirement. Yet MTBE has been found in 29 percent of our water supplies tested. Let it be clear, let there be absolutely no misunderstanding: Iowa's water and the water in every Senator's State was contaminated by a product that big oil added to their gasoline, and it was not contaminated by the Clear Air Act. Big oil did everything it could to persuade Clinton-Gore appointees and judges in our courts to guarantee that MTBE monopolized the Clean Air Act's oxygenate market. Our colleagues need to understand that nearly 500 million gallons of MTBE are sold every year throughout the United States, not to meet the oxygenate requirements of the Clean Air Act that I have been talking about up to this point, but as an octane enhancer in markets all over the United States where the oxygenate requirements under the Clean Air Act to clean up the smog don't even apply. So your water is in danger whether you live in a city that has to meet the oxygenate requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act or not because big oil uses the poison MTBE as an octane enhancer lots of places. So that gets us to a point where they want us to believe that changing the 1990 Clean Air Act is the solution to all the problems. I ask, how will gutting the Clean Air Act's oxygenate requirements protect the rest of America's water, if most gallons of gasoline have MTBE in them for octane enhancement outside the Clean Air Act? Well, that answer is pretty simple. It is not going to clean it up until we get rid of all MTBE. We need to, then, ban MTBE, which this bill we are introducing today does, not ban the Clean Air Act, or at least not gut it by eliminating the oxygenate requirements of it, which big oil says is the solution to our problem. Then we get to what is the superior MTBE replacement that is available today. My colleagues don't have to wait for me to tell them what my answer is to that, but I will. It is ethanol, which is nothing more than grain alcohol. Let's get that clear. We are talking about MTBE, a poisonous product, poisoning the water in California, where the oxygenate requirements are, but also in the rest of the country where it is used as an octane enhancer, and grain alcohol on the other hand that you can drink. Ethanol can be made from other things as well. It can be made from California rice straw. It can be made from Idaho potato waste. It can be made from Florida sugarcane, North Dakota sugar beets, New York municipal waste, Washington wood and paper waste, and a host of other biodegradable waste products. Ethanol is not only good for your air, but if it did get into your water, your only big decision would be whether to add some ice and tonic before you drink it. As my colleagues know, I am a teetotaler, so I am not going to pretend to advise you on the proper cocktail mixes. Today there is enough ethanol in storage and from what can be produced from idle ethanol facilities to displace all of the MTBE California uses in a whole year. It is available today not tomorrow, not the year 2002. And more facilities to produce it are in the works. But big oil proclaims there is not enough ethanol. Translation, as far as I can tell: We, as big oil, don't control ethanol; farmers control it. So we don't want to use it. They argue that ethanol is too difficult to transport. Translation: We would rather import Middle East MTBE from halfway across the world than transport ethanol from the Midwest of our great country. Big oil whines: Keeping the oxygenate requirement will give ethanol a monopoly. This is a whale of a tale, and it is kind of hard to translate into sensible English. Since it takes half as much ethanol as MTBE to produce a gallon of reformulated gasoline, big oil will reap a 6.2-percent increase in the amount of plain gasoline used in reformulated gasoline. So how in the world does boosting by a whopping 6.2 percent gasoline's share of the reformulated gasoline market constitute a monopoly for ethanol? That issue has been raised with Senators on the environmental committee. Currently, MTBE constitutes 3 percent of our total transportation fuel market. Ethanol, if it replaces all MTBE, would, therefore, gain a 1.5-percent share. Think about that. A 1.5-percent market share, if it is ethanol, is defined as a monopoly share. But a 3-percent market share, if it is MTBE, is not a monopoly. I think it is pretty simple to get it because the translation of this big oil babble is this: Market share, as small as 1.5 percent, if not controlled by big oil, shall henceforth be legally defined as a monopoly. Market share at any level, 3 percent to 100 percent, if it is controlled by big oil, shall never be defined as a monopoly. It is such a bizarre proposition that a mere 1.5 percent of market equals a monopoly. Big oil claims ethanol is too expensive. Let me translate that for you: We prefer--meaning oil--our cozy relationship with OPEC that allows us to price gouge Americans rather than sell at half the price an oxygenate controlled by American farmers and ethanol producers. I hope you caught that. If not, you ought to brace yourself, sit down with your cup of coffee, get anything dangerous out of your hands. The March 7, 2000, west coast spot wholesale price for gasoline was $1.27 per gallon. MTBE sold for just over $1.17 per gallon, 10 cents less. But ethanol came right in at the same price, $1.17 a gallon. Now, remember, it takes twice as much MTBE as it does ethanol to meet the Clean Air Act's oxygenate requirement. In other words, at the March 7 prices, oxygenates made from ethanol cost petroleum marketers half as much as the oxygenate made from their product, MTBE. So even though big oil has at its disposal an oxygenated alternate to MTBE, which costs half as much, and that will protect our water supplies, big oil, with the help of the Clinton administration, continues to hold hostage the people of California and other Americans who are forced to use MTBE. Last summer, I asked President Clinton to announce that he would deny California's request to waive the oxygenate requirement. I asked him to announce that he would veto any legislation that would provide for such a waiver. I have heard nothing on this subject. No answer to my letter has come from the President. His silence, and that of Vice President Gore and the rest of the administration, is very deafening. American farmers are suffering the worst prices in about 23 to 25 years. If farmers are allowed to replace MTBE with ethanol, farm income will jump $1 billion per year. But, no, increasing farm income through the marketplace, both domestic and foreign, seems to be of no interest to the Clinton-Gore administration, considering their unwillingness to act and make these public statements that would send a clear signal, as far as this consideration is concerned, that MTBE's days of poisoning the water are over, replacing that with something that is safe, something that will help the farmers, and something that will send a clear signal to OPEC that we are done with our days being dependent upon them for our oil supplies and our energy. In the process of doing that, they would help clean up our environment as well. But that doesn't seem to be of any concern to this administration either when it comes to MTBE. It seems, unfortunately, that the only thing on the collective mind of this administration is the Vice President running for President, his legacy, his partisan politics; everybody's eyes are on the next election. So I repeat, MTBE is the problem, not the Clean Air Act, as the big oil companies want us to believe. The answer to all this is so simple and clear: As our bill does, ban MTBE, but don't gut the Clean Air Act's oxygenate requirement. Let America's farmers fill this void with ethanol, and let them fill it today. It will boost farm income by $1 billion per year and help lessen our reliance upon foreign oil, and it will not keep us at the whims of OPEC quite so much. It will keep our air clean, and it will protect our water supplies. So all of those things sound good, don't they? Ethanol. It is that simple. It is good, good, good. I might be wasting my breath, but I will make this plea one more time. It is the same plea I made in a letter to the President last June or July, which was: President Clinton, reject the waiver request today and declare that you will veto any legislation that would allow a waiver of the oxygenate requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act. I assure you, Mr. President, if you do that, the water-polluting MTBE will be replaced as fast as our farmers can deliver the ethanol, and that is pretty darned swift. Do it today, President Clinton. Please do it today. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, long-term tax credits may seem like a dull topic. But the expenses of caring for an ailing family member are shocking. Millions of people bear these expenses every day, without any help. Here's a typical example: A state legislator from Ohio named Barbara Boyd testified before my Special Committee on Aging last year. Ms. Boyd cared at home for her mother who had Alzheimer's disease and breast cancer. Her mother had $20,000 in savings and a monthly Social Security check. That went quickly. Prescription drugs alone ran $400 a month. Antibiotics, ointments to prevent skin breakdown, incontinence supplies and other expenses cost hundreds of dollars a month. Ms. Boyd exhausted her own savings to care for her mother, and exhausted herself. She isn't complaining. Family caregivers don't complain. But we can and should use the tax code to ease their burden. Yesterday a bipartisan group of legislators, and two prominent groups--AARP and the Health Insurance Association of America, announced a consensus agreement on a legislative package to help people with a variety of long-term care needs. Our bill contains a tax deduction to encourage individuals to buy long-term care insurance. We want to help people to prepare for their health needs in retirement. The bill also contains a $3,000 tax credit for family caregivers caring for a disabled relative at home. Under this legislation, Ms. Boyd's mother could have purchased long-term care insurance long before she developed Alzheimer's. In addition, Ms. Boyd could have used the tax credit to help with the costs of the medications and medical supplies for her mother. I'm pleased that we have so much agreement in Washington about helping people with long-term care expenses. The legislators sponsoring this legislation have pushed for long-term care relief for years. Today, my colleagues and I will introduce this bill. We'll work to get it passed into law as soon as possible. An aging nation has no time to waste in preparing for long-term care. Family caregivers need immediate relief from their expensive and exhausting work. Joining me in introducing this bill is Senator Bob Graham of Florida, Representative Nancy Johnson, and Representative Karen Thurman.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the conference report before us has been a long time in the making. It is a comprehensive bill that successfully addresses many important aviation issues. Not the least of these is the eventual elimination of the so-called slot rules at three of our nation's airports, O'Hare, Kennedy and LaGuardia. It also adds additional slots at Reagan Washington National Airport. I support these measures. I congratulate Senator McCain, the Senate Commerce Committee Chairman, Senator Gorton, the Aviation Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Hollings, the full committee ranking member, and Senator Rockefeller, the subcommittee ranking member, for their efforts to bring about good public policy. This has not been an easy conference, and all of you have put forth a tremendous effort to see that it was concluded successfully. I wish to also thank their staffs. I also express my thanks and admiration to my good friend, Senator Domenici, our Budget Committee chairman. Of all the issues before the conference, the resolution of the budget issues was the most trying and complex. Senator Domenici and his staff worked tirelessly to seek a fair and adequate solution to this problem. I express my admiration for my friend and colleague, Senator Stevens, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Stevens has played a key role in reaching an agreement on spending. The phase-out of the slot rule at O'Hare and LaGuardia will open a new era in aviation. Because it is a phase-out and not an immediate termination, that era should also give smaller airports a better chance for a piece of the economic pie at the national and international levels. While e-commerce may be all the rage currently, people still need to travel for business purposes. Direct human contact is still the premium way to do business, and air travel is the fastest way to accomplish that over long distances and tight time frames. This compromise follows the direction which my Iowa colleague, Senator Harkin, and I set forth early in the debate on the slot rule. We looked at the needs of the airports in Iowa, and came to the conclusion together that it was time for a change if our State was to maintain its economic momentum in the national and international marketplace. Iowa does not have a major hub airport that guarantees low-cost or frequent flights. Like most States, we have smaller airports that are greatly affected by the traffic into and out of the major hub airports. In this case those airports are O'Hare and LaGuardia. Our solution was to phase out the slot rule. The first step was to immediately give increased access to the hub airports by turboprop aircraft and regional jets. These are the aircraft that primarily serve our smaller airports. Giving them time before the slot rule is lifted for large airport-to-large airport competition should give the smaller airports time to establish the economic and market base needed to justify service. Otherwise, we would only see increased flights between major cities, to the exclusion of smaller airports. We received the support of a large number of Senators who were also concerned about the future of their small hub and nonhub airports. Together, all of us have been able to accomplish what was unthinkable just several years ago, the eventual elimination of the slot rule at those two airports. I deeply appreciate their faith and support to accomplish this. I also thank President Clinton for having the foresight and courage to recommend the elimination of the slot rule at these airports. He gave a legitimacy and momentum to the debate that would not have existed otherwise. The States attorneys general, lead by Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, also played a significant part and should be thanked. Not everyone is entirely happy with the compromise solution in this conference report. I look upon that as ratification that it must be a pretty good compromise. I truly feel that the airlines were treated as fairly and equally as possible. Our Nation's airports will be receiving additional funds for their capital needs under this legislation. I know that these funds are much needed and will be put to good use. Iowa's airports have rehabilitation and expansion plans that will be enhanced by these additional funds. This includes increased disbursements from the Airports and Airways Trust Fund and the increase in the passenger facility charge, PFC. It is important to note that the PFC will not increase at an airport until local authorities have approved an increase. It is entirely within their realm to grant or deny this increase at the local level. However, I must again warn the Federal Aviation Administration that more money will not cure all of the problems facing the FAA and the aviation industry. Fundamental reform of the way the FAA does business and on a cultural level is necessary if we are to truly make the advances which are needed. As a budget conferee, I believe the budget compromise is the best we can do at this time. I shall work with Chairman Domenici to secure the necessary funds through the budget process. The biggest disappoint to me is the inclusion of a civil fine against airline employee whistle-blowers. While I am very pleased that whistle- blower protection has been extended to the aviation industry, I feel that it is flawed due to the civil penalty. Such a penalty does not exist in other whistle-blower statutes. I will work to correct this situation. Whistle-blower protection adds another, much needed, layer of protection for the traveling public using our Nation's air transportation system. I am pleased to have worked with the Association of Flight Attendants AFL-CIO on this important, ground breaking legislation. They have worked tirelessly on this provision, and I know they will continue to work with me to correct this flaw. I call upon the airlines to do the same and seek the help of the public, also. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for this conference report.