Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes. We now only have 9 amendments remaining from the 200 or 300 we started with back in late October. That is quite an accomplishment, and I thank the Senator for his cooperation.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I would like to clear some amendments. Senator Leahy is ready to do this. I ask unanimous consent that amendments Nos. 2651 and 2517, both of which have been modified, be adopted en bloc in their modified form and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Senator from Vermont and yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in my capacity as chairman of the International Trade Subcommittee and getting ready for the Seattle Round, as well as considering China's accession to the World Trade Organization, I want to speak on Congress' power and our responsibility on the whole issue of international trade. It is very clear in the Constitution that the Congress of the United States has the power, as one of the specifically delineated powers of Congress in the first article, to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. So the United States has just concluded a bilateral market access agreement with China. It should pave the way for China's accession to the World Trade Organization. From what I have heard about this agreement--and, of course, we only have summaries at this point--it is an exceptionally good one for the United States and especially for American agriculture. I said, when the agreement fell through on April 8, I was fearful that a lot of ground would be lost. I don't think, from what I know, there has been any ground lost with the renegotiation. Charlene Barshefsky, our U.S. Trade Representative, conducted herself in a highly professional way and negotiated what appears to be an excellent agreement, and she did it under very difficult circumstances. Now that the negotiations are finished, the job of the Senate and the House of Representatives becomes even more important. Our constitutional responsibility requires that the Senate and the House carefully review the agreement in its entirety, and the extent to which there are changes in law, they obviously have to pass the Congress, as any law would, and be signed by the President. It is a responsibility every Senator takes very seriously because it is assigned to us by the Constitution. And because the Congress has a unique and close relationship with the American people, we must also keep faith with the people who sent us here to fulfill our constitutional responsibilities. That is why it is critical we know everything that was negotiated. I want to put emphasis upon that statement. That is why it is important that the Congress of the United States know everything that was negotiated--everything, every issue, every detail, and every interpretation--so there can be no surprises, no private exchanges of letters, no private understandings about the key meanings of key phrases in the agreement, and no reservations whatsoever that are kept just between negotiators. In other words, if Congress is going to legislate these agreements and secure these agreements, Congress has a responsibility not only to make sure everything is on the table but to make sure the administration puts everything on the table. Let me be clear about this. There is an absolute requirement of disclosure. Congress must see everything that is negotiated. And it has not always been this way, or I wouldn't be to the floor asking my colleagues to consider this, and with an admonition to the administration to make sure everything is given to Congress. When congressional approval is required, only what we see and vote on should become the law. Nothing should become the law of the land that is secretly negotiated and that isn't submitted to Congress for our approval. Because there have been problems in this area in the past, Senator Conrad of North Dakota and I have introduced legislation. This legislation is contained in the African trade bill. That trade bill was recently approved by the Senate. I will work very hard to see that this provision is part of the final bill approved by conference committee before the African trade bill is sent to the President. Why are we where we are today with what Senator Conrad and I have tried to accomplish, and did accomplish, as far as the Senate is concerned? Unfortunately, past administrations have not complied with their basic principles of complete disclosure and complete openness in their submittal of agreements to the Congress. A prior administration-- it happened to be a Republican administration--violated the spirit, if not the letter, of this absolute good faith requirement of complete disclosure. This incident occurred in 1988. I want to give background on it because it was in regard to the Canadian Free Trade Agreement which became part of the North American Free Trade Agreement. At that time, there was disagreement about the meaning of a term relating to Canada's price support system for wheat. If anybody has heard the articulate speaking of the Senator from North Dakota on this issue--Senator Conrad has talked about this many times, about wheat unfairly coming into the northern United States in violation of the free trade agreement but somehow being legal because of these side agreements that Congress didn't know about in the past. There was a disagreement about the meaning of a term relating to Canada's price support system for wheat. The issue dealt with whether the Canadians were manipulating their price support system by unfairly defining a very key term in their favor, thus allowing them to sell wheat below cost in the United States market in violation of the clear meaning of a provision of the Canadian-United States free trade agreement. The United States insisted that Canada was, indeed, selling wheat below cost in violation of the agreement. Canada denied the violation. The dispute was even taken to a binational panel for resolution. In the argument before the binational panel for dispute resolution, the Canadian side at that time produced a letter from a few years back from the United States Trade Representative to the Canadians supporting the Canadian interpretation of the provision and very devastating to the case brought by the United States. The question now is whether the U.S. Trade Representative's letter, or his interpretation of this controversial and important provision, was properly reported to the Congress before we considered that agreement, voted on it, and it became the law of the land. Some might argue that it was disclosed. Others say it was not. In my view, because the issue of Canada's price support system for wheat was such a politically sensitive issue in the context of the NAFTA agreement, there should not have been any room for doubt what the administration's interpretation was. The disclosure of the administration's interpretation of this key language should have been fully and completely disclosed--not just in the fine print or in response to questions raised by a Senator at a hearing. When important issues of foreign commerce are at stake and Congress is exercising its constitutional power of regulating foreign commerce, we in the Congress should not have to guess what the answer is or even have to figure out how to ask the right questions in the hearing at the right time and in the right way to get an honest answer, to have open disclosure of what our agreements are and what the results of the negotiation are. This incident on the wheat and the Canadian Free Trade Agreement had unfortunate and profound consequences. It led some in Congress to believe they could not trust our negotiators. Some of us believed we weren't dealt with fairly. The American wheat farmer has been harmed as a result of it. Now, I want to say I have the highest regard for our negotiators, especially for Ambassador Barshefsky. She has done a remarkable job. She has my complete trust. So this is not about Ambassador Barshefsky. It is not about any one of our negotiators. Nor is this a partisan concern. The incident that sparked my concern occurred during a Republican administration. I am concerned about one simple thing. The principle of openness and full disclosure to Congress. This simple, basic principle applies not just to the agreement with China. In about ten days, the United States will help launch a new round of global trade negotiations in Seattle. This new round of trade liberalization talks will cover agriculture, services, and other key trade issues. Many of these issues are sensitive, and even controversial. We must be confident that we will see everything that is negotiated in the new round before it can become law. The legislation Senator Conrad and I wrote that is part of the Africa trade bill requires full disclosure to Congress of all agreements or understandings with a foreign government relating to agricultural trade negotiations--what we refer to here as agricultural trade negotiations, objectives, and consultation. Anyway, our provision says that any such agreement or understanding that is not disclosed to Congress before legislation implementing a trade agreement is introduced in the Congress shall not become law. In other words, if Congress doesn't know about the agreement, it should not become law. That is very simple. It is very clear. It is a restatement of the principle of full disclosure. It is consistent with Congress' constitutional responsibility for foreign commerce, but I understand the administration opposes this commonsense provision. They want it removed from the bill. Mr. President, it says in the Conrad-Grassley bill, no secret side deals. The Congress agreed that there should be fully submitted to Congress all of the provisions of any negotiations that must be approved by Congress. I don't know why the administration wants this language removed from the trade bill, but this is what they have sent to the conferees in the Congress of the United States. They list this section that says no secret side deals. They are suggesting we strike this subsection. We cannot let this happen. I will do everything I can to make sure this physical disclosure provision becomes the law of the land when the House and Senate conferees finally consider the African trade bill. I believe our Government should live by the same standards we expect from farmers in my hometown of New Hartford, IA, or any businessman in Des Moines, IA. Tell us exactly what you mean. Show us everything in the agreement. Act in good faith. I ask my colleagues to support this provision and vote for it when it comes back from the conference committee so we have physical disclosure of everything so Congress isn't asked to vote on something that is secret, that we don't know anything about. If we do that, we are violating our constitutional responsibility to the people of this country.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I think it is.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I would like to ask the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Finance a question regarding a tax provision which Congress adopted this summer as part of the vetoed Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999. Mr. Chairman, section 1005 of that Act would have provided that the principles of section 482 should be used to determine whether transactions between tax-exempt organizations and related non-exempt entities give rise to unrelated business income tax. This provision was needed to insure that legitimate arms length transactions between these entities are not penalized. Unfortunately, it appears that this session will end without our having another opportunity to once again enact this vitally needed protection for the tax exempt community. As a result, I would like to ask the distinguished Chairman whether he would agree that this provision should be included as a high priority in the first tax vehicle that we adopt in the second session.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to express my deep disappointment at the language affecting Federal dairy policy included in the Omnibus appropriations bill before us. As the Members know, the Omnibus measure includes an extension of the Northeast Dairy Compact and language on reforming our Nation's Federal dairy policy which has been in place since the Depression. It may seem unusual to some Members that a Senator from Iowa would have an interest in this matter. While Iowa's reputation as an agriculture powerhouse is well-established and well-deserved, I think when many people think of agriculture in Iowa, they think of commodities such as soybeans or pork. However, the dairy industry is very important to Iowa as well. The total economic contribution of the dairy industry to the Iowa economy is over $1.5 billion annually. Nearly 10,000 Iowans are employed through dairy farming and processing. Furthermore, Iowa ranks 12th in the Nation in Dairy Production. So the State of Iowa has good reason to be concerned about Federal dairy policy. I have long been concerned about the impact of the Northeast Dairy Compact, which was authorized by the 1996 farm bill and which was due to sunset in October of this year, has had, and how it will affect producers in the future. I voted in 1996 to strip the language from the farm bill which allowed for the formation of the Northeast Dairy Compact. The only reason the language was included in the farm bill was political trading at the last minute. Since the inception of the Northwest Compact, it is clear that its consequences have not been good. According to the International Dairy Foods Association, the Northeast Compact has cost New England milk consumers nearly $65 million in higher milk prices, at the same time costing child nutrition programs $9 million more. Consumers have paid a price that is too high for the Northeast Compact. We should not make more consumers suffer the same consequences. I also believe that compacts are an abuse of the Constitution. While the Constitution does allow for the formation of compacts, it is usually invoked for transportation or public works project. The Northeast Dairy Compact is the first time that compacts have been used for the purpose of price fixing for regional interests. For the most effective functioning of the U.S. economy, it must be unified. Preventing economic protectionism is at the heart of our Constitution. Renewing or expanding compacts flies in the face of that basic tenet. Furthermore, neither the Judiciary Committee or the Agriculture Committee, which have jurisdiction over such matters, has had the opportunity to review this measure. Such a committee examination is warranted and necessary. One of the things that worries me about dairy compacts is their potential effect on other commodities. Higher prices mean more milk and less demand. The key to increasing dairy producers' income is expanding demand for milk and dairy products. If we take steps to expand dairy compacts, we will be going in the opposite direction. It is also my view that compacts are contradictory to the philosophy of freedom to farm, which my friend, the senior Senator from Vermont, supported. The whole philosophy behind freedom to farm was moving away from the old ``command and control'', government-run AG policies of the past. We need more free markets and free trade, not less. which brings me to my final point on compacts. As Chairman of the Finance Committee's Subcommittee on Trade, maintaining a strong trade position for the United States is my top priority. One of the reasons why the United States is the only true superpower left in the world and why our Nation remains economically strong while others have faltered is because we function as one economically. Our economic prosperity is undeniable proof of the superiority of free and open markets. If we were to allow the perpetuation of dairy compacts, it would send a very damaging signal to the rest of the world. It would send the message that we do not have the confidence that a free and open economy will ensure that producers who come to the market with a quality product will be able to support themselves. Not only is the compact language in this bill unacceptable for dairy producers in the Midwest, but the Omnibus bill also includes language on the Nation's milk marketing orders that is detrimental to Iowa's dairy producers. Members know that milk marketing orders are a system put in place over 60 years ago to regulate milk handlers in a particular order region to promote orderly marketing conditions. The 1996 farm bill required USDA to cut the number of marketing orders by over half and implement an up-to-date market oriented system of milk distribution. After a great deal of study and comment, USDA came up with two proposals, Option 1-A, and Option 1-B. Option 1-A is close to the status quo and Option 1-B is geared toward the free market and modernizing the system. While neither proposal was perfect, Option 1-B was definitely a better choice. However, given the concerns expressed by the public about both proposals, USDA issued a compromise initiative, which was still preferable to Option 1-A. Unfortunately, Option 1-A proponents have succeeded in getting Option 1-A language included in the Omnibus appropriations bill. Those who favor 1-A sometimes make the argument that the compromise devised by USDA would cost dairy farmers nationwide $200 million. However, according to the USDA, net farm income would be higher under the compromise that under the status quo which is what 1-A is in many ways. The Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, which is located in my State at Iowa State University, has concluded that 60 percent of the Nation's dairy farmers would receive more income under the USDA compromise plan. The unequal treatment of the old system, which is maintained by 1-A, artificially raises prices for milk in other parts of the country, encouraging excess production which spills into Midwestern markets. This simply lowers the price that Midwestern producers receive. The Federal Milk Marketing order System is out of date and out of touch with modern production and economics. It is long overdue for reform and this language in the Omnibus bill just puts that off. My producers and others in other Midwestern States have endured the inequities of the Milk Marketing Order System long enough. I am very disappointed that the unfairness of the old system would be perpetuated by the language in this bill. We could still correct the mistakes made by this bill which would have a tremendously detrimental effect on dairy producers within Iowa and the rest of Midwest. I urge the leadership on both sides of the aisle to work with Midwestern Senators to help put an end to the unfair treatment of the Midwestern dairy farmers. Thank you.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the critical issue of foster care. Today, there are more than 500,000 children and teens in our nation's foster care system. These children represent one of the most vulnerable segments of our population: Children who have been taken from unsafe homes, and children who have suffered from abuse and neglect. This group of children deserves all the love and attention of a loving, caring and permanent family. Foster care is not permanency. I repeat, foster care is and should not be viewed as permanency for children. Unfortunately, some youth in foster care--estimated at 20,000 each year-- are not placed in a permanent, safe home before they are graduated from the child welfare system. These youth are expected to be self- sufficient, in many States at the age of eighteen. Foster care independent living programs, also known as ILPs, were initiated in 1985 in an attempt to provide this segment of the foster care population with the skills necessary for self-sufficiency. States have flexibility in the type of services they provide to their older foster youth; some options include assistance in locating employment, help in completing high school, or training in budgeting and other living skills. The results of ILPs have been, at best, mixed. Two weeks ago, the Government Accounting Office released a report entitled ``Effectiveness of Independent Living Services Unknown.'' GAO conducted a study of ILPs at the request of House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources Chairman Nancy Johnson. This report reveals that only one national study has been completed to date, and the study determined that ILPs have the ``potential to improve outcomes for youths.'' The study went on to say that ``while HHS is tasked with overseeing implementation of ILP, it has done little to determine program effectiveness and has no established method to review the states' progress in helping youths in the transition from foster care.'' The GAO report recommends that the Secretary of HHS develop ``a uniform set of data elements and a report format for state reporting . . . and concrete measures of effectiveness of assessing state ILPs.'' I have, for a number of years, been concerned about the issue of accountability within the child welfare system. And, the GAO report supports my belief that more explicit information is needed from the States and HHS in order to ensure that Federal money is being spend in a manner that truly benefits the lives of our nation's troubled youth. Today, the Senate passed legislation that will double the amount of money provided to States to conduct independent living programs. And, I am highly disappointed in the lack of specificity and accountability measures within the bill. Yes, the Secretary of HHS will be required to develop outcome measures and identify data elements in an attempt to collect uniform data from the States. However, there is great leeway provided the Secretary in developing such measures and States are not required to improve upon their own past performance. The Foster Care Independence Act, as passed by the Senate, does require the Secretary to report within 12 months her plans and timetable for collecting data and information from States. I am committed to following the progress of the Secretary in collecting data and developing standards for the States. Rest assured, I will be watching. And, I will do whatever is required of me to ensure that our nation's foster youth are provided with the most effective and worthwhile services their State agencies can provide. Accountability is critical in any human undertaking. It provides an environment for those doing well to be commended and recognized. And, it sheds light on those acting irresponsibly. We in Congress have the responsibility to see that taxpayer money is spend wisely. I see a no more critical responsibility than in ensuring States are responsibly spending money on vulnerable youth in foster care. November is National Adoption Month. Earlier this month, I joined my colleagues with the Congressional Coalition on Adoption in celebrating those who have made a difference through adoption. I was able to honor three worthy individuals from the great State of Iowa: Ruth Ann Gaines and Jeff and Earletta Morris. Ruth Ann adopted an autistic boy more than 14 years ago, and the Morrises adopted a teenager just over a year ago. I am grateful for their efforts and heart-felt belief in the value of family, and I am glad to announce them ``Angels in Adoption.'' In closing, I want to reaffirm my commitment to finding permanent, loving families for each boy and girl currently without a loving and safe home. I am disappointed the Foster Care Independence Act did not contain more provisions supporting permanency. However, I will continue my efforts in support of permanency for children in foster care. Among others, Congresswoman Nancy Johnson has given me her word that she will work with me to improve accountability in the child welfare system. I look forward to working with all my colleagues in the next session to that end.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any votes ordered today be stacked for a time to be determined by the leader.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, maybe to be fair to everybody, I better suggest the absence of a quorum and that time would be equally divided.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment because it sets up a double standard which lets below median-income bankrupts load up on debt on the eve of bankruptcy and then get those debts wiped away without judicial scrutiny. I know the Senator from New York is well- intentioned, but this amendment is a very bad idea. Last night, the Senator from New York, in proposing his amendment, correctly noted that there is no evidence whatever that below median- income debtors could ever pay a significant amount of their debts. We have taken care of the problem the Senator from New York has raised by totally exempting below median-income debtors from the means test. I think that is fair and reasonable. It is a fact of life. It means the poor won't be forced into repayment plans they could never complete. However, this amendment raises an entirely different question. This amendment isn't about whether the poor should be given a pass in terms of being forced to repay their debts. This amendment says people below the median income can purchase over $1,000 in luxury goods, such as Gucci loafers, and get over $1,000 in cash advances just minutes before declaring bankruptcy and they won't have to justify their debts to a bankruptcy judge. This is not good bankruptcy policy. Anybody who loads up on debt on the eve of bankruptcy should have to justify their debts. When it comes to suspicious and perhaps fraudulent behavior, we should treat everyone the same, below median income or above median income. Anybody who loads up on debt right before filing for bankruptcy should have to explain themselves; otherwise, we open the door to an obvious abuse. Last week, we defeated the Dodd amendment which contained very similar provisions. I ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on the consideration of these amendments: 1695, as modified; 2520; 2746, as modified; 2522, as modified. I send the modifications to the desk and ask for their immediate consideration, that they be adopted, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Reserving the right to object, is there a unanimous consent agreement before the Senate?

Mr. GRASSLEY. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent on some amendments that have been agreed to. I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments, as modified where noted, be considered agreed to, en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc. The amendments are as follows: No. 2655, as modified; No. 2764, as modified; and No. 2661, as modified. I send the modifications to the desk. Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Before the Chair rules, I think the Senator from Nevada wishes to make a statement.

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

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we now move to consideration of the amendment by the Senator from New York that we call the safe harbor amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that there be 10 minutes, 5 minutes for the Senator from New York----