Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of a bill that I am introducing today, the Combating Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act of 2006.

I first introduced the Combating Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act in 2003 to address what I saw as a significant threat to the security of our Nation. Money laundering is an issue of profound importance to our national security because it undermines financial stability by infiltrating and using legitimate financial institutions to hide the illegitimate source of these funds. Money laundering also affects our national security simply because money is the motivating factor for so much of the criminal activities that affect our daily lives, from shoplifting and petty theft to drug trafficking and multi- million dollar stock frauds.

We also know that money laundering is a key tool for terrorist groups because it fuels their ability to spread murder, fear and destruction throughout the world. One of the 9/11 Commission Report recommendations stated that, ``Vigorous efforts to track terrorist financing must remain front and center in the U.S. counter-terrorism efforts.'' The Commission expressed its concerns about terrorist financing and ``the need to crack down on terrorist organizations and curtail their funding.'' I strongly share the Commission's concerns and support their recommendations that they provided in their final report.

However, I am very concerned about the 9/11 Commission's Final Report Card, released on December 5, 2005, which gave the U.S. Government an A- for our ``vigorous efforts against terror financing.'' After the release of the 9/11 Commission Report and nearly 4 years after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, our Government is still too ill-equipped and fraught with in-fighting to rate an A- for its efforts. While we have made significant strides in identifying the methods used to earn, store and move this money, we are still far behind the curve on shutting down the flow of illicit financing permanently.

Billions of dollars continue to be funneled to terrorist and criminal organizations after being laundered for these organizations around the world. Therefore, we must continue to increase the pressure we put on these organizations until we reach the point where their ever-changing money laundering methods are no longer convenient, profitable or effective.

The legislation I am introducing today includes several provisions that will strengthen our current money laundering laws by streamlining a number of statutes, clarifying language in the current law and closing loopholes that are often exploited by criminal organizations. As our new anti-money laundering laws have proven to be effective and make money laundering through traditional financial institutions more difficult, criminals are

forced to shift methods to launder their illegally gained funds. As these criminals change their tactics, so must we. Allow me to tell you about some of the key changes that this bill includes to meet these challenges.

To begin with, under current law there are over 200 ``specified unlawful activities'' or ``SUA's'' that serve as predicate offenses for money laundering charges. As criminals continue to alter their methods of laundering illegal funds, this list of required ``SUA's'' is sure to grow. My legislation will eliminate the need to continually update the statutes by consolidating the growing list of ``specified unlawful activities'' to include all offenses punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year. This legislation also recognizes the global aspect of money laundering by including foreign offenses that would be illegal money laundering offenses had they occurred within U.S. jurisdiction.

This bill also simplifies current law by allowing the government to charge money laundering acts as a ``course of conduct.'' Currently, in most circuits, courts are required to charge each money laundering transaction as a separate count. This legislation allows, but does not require, courts to charge a series of money laundering offenses as a ``course of conduct.'' This change would reduce the time and expense currently incurred by courts that are required to charge and prosecute each separate violation of the money laundering laws.

As new laws have made money laundering through traditional financial institutions more difficult, criminals are turning to riskier methods of moving their money. One growing area is bulk cash smuggling, and as such, this bill increases the penalty for bulk cash smuggling to 10 years.

In addition, many ``money service businesses,'' or ``MSB's'' have also come under increased scrutiny because of their suspected role in moving funds from the United States to terrorist organizations throughout the world. Another provision of my legislation amends Section 373 of the USA PATRIOT Act regarding money service businesses to read ``illegal'' instead of ``unlicensed'' to ensure that the law covers any money service business that promotes unlawful activity as a course of business.

Another money laundering technique is for couriers to carry checks that are complete except for the dollar amount. Under this approach the couriers attempt to avoid U.S. Customs reporting requirements through the movement of monetary instruments that are in bearer form and are worth over $10,000. Even though the blank checks are in bearer form, they argue that the value being left blank is not over $10,000 and does not need to be reported. Once they and the blank check reach their destination, all they need to do is to fill in the amount, whatever that may be, and have it negotiated. This legislation removes any confusion as to whether this act is a violation of the reporting requirement. This bill would resolve this issue by clarifying that a check in bearer form, with an amount left blank shall be deemed to have a value equal to the highest amount in the bank account that it is drawn upon while the check was being transported, or when the blank check is cashed or intended to be cashed.

My legislation eliminates confusion or ambiguity about the definition of ``commingled funds,'' and structured transactions. ``Commingling of funds'' is a method often used by criminals to disguise illegal money from legal money by mixing the funds together in one account. ``Structured transactions'' is a method used to circumvent our monetary transaction reporting requirements by breaking monetary transactions into several smaller dollar amounts so as to avoid a Government reporting requirement if the transaction had been only one transaction with a value over $10,000. Plus, this legislation clarifies extraterritorial jurisdiction to include money laundering acts that have an effect in the United States.

Often, money couriers are intercepted before they reach the collection point but are released because they claim that they didn't know that the money was derived illegally. My bill ensures that the courier can no longer be released from responsibility in the money laundering chain by claiming ignorance about how the money was derived, which means the law enforcement agency can get both the courier and the money off the street.

Finally, this bill updates counterfeiting statutes to keep them current with new technology and devices, such as holograms, that are used to produce counterfeits of U.S. obligations and securities.

The battle against terrorism and organized criminal groups must be fought on many fronts--including the financial front. We know that we have made strides in this area as evidenced by the money launderers' use of different techniques. As important as it is to learn what techniques these criminals use, it is just as important to act upon this knowledge. If we can shut down the flow of illegal money, whether generated by drug sales or in support of terrorist activities, I believe we will make a significant impact on the demise of these criminal and terrorist groups. This bill is important to identifying particular criminal and terrorist financing operations and putting them out of business. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation and strengthen our national efforts against the continued threat of terrorist financing and financial crimes.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of a bill introduced by me today that may be cited as the ``Alternative Energy Extender Act'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President I rise to introduce legislation that would address the concerns related to the shipping of live birds through the United States Postal Service. I introduced a similar bill during the 107th Congress with bi-partisan support. It was included in Public Law 107-67.

This bill should close some loopholes that some of the airlines are using to avoid the timely shipping of day-old baby chicks.

Some members of the airline industry stated that they commonly and regularly refuse to transport shipments of some species of live animals for its regularly scheduled cargo service and, therefore, can refuse to carry any live animals by mail under existing law. My bill will make the law apply to ``any air carrier that commonly and regularly carries any live animals as cargo,'' thus making sure that if the air carrier does ship any live animals as cargo, it will be required to ship animals as mail.

There have been accusations that the shipping of day-old poultry could spread avian influenza. I have received information from Avian Health Veterinarians and they have informed me that avian influenza is not an egg transmitted disease. There are no reports of day-old poultry from infected breeders being infected with avian influenza when they hatch.

Poultry health specialists have been examining the vertical transmission, or parents-to-chicks via the egg of avian influenza, for more than 30 years. Studies looking at the avian influenza have consistently failed to reveal evidence of avian influenza virus infections in newly hatched chicks from infected parent flocks.

This clearly shows that day-old poultry are not likely to be naturally infected. So the risk of transmitting avian influenza through shipment of day-old poultry is not an issue.

This bill would also address two other problems that have caused an adverse economic impact to bird shippers. First, the bill requires air carriers that take poultry as mail, to transfer such shipments so that the shipper is guaranteed that the shipment will reach its ultimate destination.

Second, it requires an air carrier to take shipments of poultry as air mail when the outside temperature is between 0 degrees Fahrenheit -17 degrees Celsius and 100 degrees Fahrenheit or 37.77 degrees Celsius from point of origin of the shipment through the point of destination. These temperature parameters are accepted by avian veterinarians as safe and humane.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President I rise to introduce legislation that would address the concerns related to the shipping of live birds through the United States Postal Service. I introduced a similar bill during the 107th Congress with bi-partisan support. It was included in Public Law 107-67.

This bill should close some loopholes that some of the airlines are using to avoid the timely shipping of day-old baby chicks.

Some members of the airline industry stated that they commonly and regularly refuse to transport shipments of some species of live animals for its regularly scheduled cargo service and, therefore, can refuse to carry any live animals by mail under existing law. My bill will make the law apply to ``any air carrier that commonly and regularly carries any live animals as cargo,'' thus making sure that if the air carrier does ship any live animals as cargo, it will be required to ship animals as mail.

There have been accusations that the shipping of day-old poultry could spread avian influenza. I have received information from Avian Health Veterinarians and they have informed me that avian influenza is not an egg transmitted disease. There are no reports of day-old poultry from infected breeders being infected with avian influenza when they hatch.

Poultry health specialists have been examining the vertical transmission, or parents-to-chicks via the egg of avian influenza, for more than 30 years. Studies looking at the avian influenza have consistently failed to reveal evidence of avian influenza virus infections in newly hatched chicks from infected parent flocks.

This clearly shows that day-old poultry are not likely to be naturally infected. So the risk of transmitting avian influenza through shipment of day-old poultry is not an issue.

This bill would also address two other problems that have caused an adverse economic impact to bird shippers. First, the bill requires air carriers that take poultry as mail, to transfer such shipments so that the shipper is guaranteed that the shipment will reach its ultimate destination.

Second, it requires an air carrier to take shipments of poultry as air mail when the outside temperature is between 0 degrees Fahrenheit -17 degrees Celsius and 100 degrees Fahrenheit or 37.77 degrees Celsius from point of origin of the shipment through the point of destination. These temperature parameters are accepted by avian veterinarians as safe and humane.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I put a hold on the President's nominee for the Export-Import Bank. I don't usually issue a press release when I do that, but I did that because it is in relationship to a problem we are having with the Export-Import Bank on an ethanol issue, and I want the people to know that it is broader than just some of the small reasons you do holds around here.

But I have had a practice, as this amendment would mandate--I have had a practice over the last 7 or 8 years of putting a statement in the Congressional Record when I use a hold. I believe I use a hold a little less often than some of my colleagues do, but I agree. A lot of people maybe use a hold because they do not want to put up with the fuss that goes on when you make public why you are holding up a bill and who you are. But I want to assure you, I have been in the Senate for 25 years, and I have not lost one ounce of blood. I have not had one black and blue mark. I don't believe I have had any fight with any colleague over the practice when they know who I am.

Of course, if they were secret and they never knew I was doing it, I wouldn't have to worry about any of these things. But I believe, as my colleague from Oregon does, that the people's business is the people's business, and the people's business ought to be public. I believe if you have guts enough to put a special hold on legislation, you ought to have guts enough to say who you are and why you are doing it. I think your constituents ought to know that. But more importantly, just to get things done around here, your colleagues ought to know who it is because if you have a gripe, let's get the gripe out in the open and let's talk about it.

What is wrong in America that we do not want to talk about some things? I don't know how often my constituents brag about: ``There are two things I never talk about, religion and politics.'' There are no things that you ought to talk about more than religion and politics because they have more influence on your life than anything else that we do in American society. But somehow you can't think that you can do it in a civil way when you ought to be able to do it in a civil way. In the U.S. Senate you ought to be able to do all this stuff in a civil way.

I hope my experiences of not having any harm done to me in any way for putting a hold on, that people will back this amendment and get the public's business out. There is nothing wrong with the word ``hold,'' but there is something wrong with the word ``secret.'' When you read it in the newspapers you never hear the word ``hold'' unless the word ``secret'' is connected with it.

The people around the countryside of America, at least in my State of Iowa, think what is wrong with American Government is that there is too much secrecy, too much behind-the-scenes dealing, too much money in politics--all those things that give us kind of a black eye with the public. This is not going to solve these problems, just taking the word ``secret'' out of the hold.

But at least the newspapers won't be able to use the word ``secret'' anymore. And maybe when bit by bit we do some of these things around here we will be able to elevate public service to be the honorable profession that it ought to be.

This is a small effort on the part of my colleague and myself and now Senator Inhofe to do that.

How do you eat 10,000 marshmallows? You eat one at a time. How are you going to raise public respect for the Senate? You are going to do it a little bit at a time. This may be too little for some people. But the way caucuses are being held around here on this very subject in the last hour, you know this is a big deal--and it should be a big deal.

This is the public's business. Having expressed those views, I would like to go to a statement I have that maybe will make more sense.

The time has come for the Senate as a body to rid itself of a serious blemish. And, of course, I am talking about the practice I just spoke about of placing anonymous holds on legislation or nominations.

The power of the hold is to stop a bill or a nomination in its tracks, which each Senator possesses. It was never authorized or even intended. It is just a practice. It is not in the books.

I do not object to the use of this powerful tool, so long as it is accompanied with some public accountability. However, the current lack of transparency in the process is an affront to the principle of open government, and I think it is an embarrassment to this body.

The amendment by Senator Wyden and myself and Senator Inhofe which we proposed today would establish a standing order requiring that holds be made public. We believe it is time to have the Senate consider our proposed standing order and then decide as a body whether to end this secret process.

For my colleagues who might be apprehensive about this change in doing business, I ask you to just give it a try. I should point out that this measure is a standing order which, while binding on Senators, does not formally amend the Senate rules and can more easily be changed if it turns out to be unworkable.

I have no doubt that once instituted this reform will be found to be very sound and no reason will be found why it should not be continued for a long period of time. For years, I have made it my practice to publicly disclose in the Congressional Record any hold that I place along with a short explanation. It is quick, it is easy, and it is painless. I want to assure my colleagues of that.

Our proposed standing order would provide that a simple form be filled out, much like we do when we add cosponsors to a bill. Senators would have a full 3 session days from placing the hold to submit the form. The hold would then be published in the Congressional Record and the Senate Calendar. It is just as simple as that.

This amendment is essentially the same as S. Res. 216 in the 108th Congress, which was a collaborative effort between myself, the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Wyden, Senator Lott, and Senator Byrd.

In the last Congress, Chairman Lott held a hearing in the Rules Committee on the issue that is before us. Since that time, I have worked with Senators Wyden, Lott, and Byrd to come up with what I think is a very well thought out proposal to require public disclosure of holds on legislation or nominations in the Senate.

It says a lot that this proposal was written with the help of such outstanding Senators as Senator Lott and Senator Byrd. As chairman of the Rules Committee and as former majority leader, Senator Lott brings valuable perspective and experience. It is also a great honor to be able to work on this issue with Senator Byrd, who is also a former majority leader and an expert on Senate rules and procedures.

I can think of no reason a single Senator should be able to kill a bill or a nomination in complete secrecy. Despite recent attempts by the leadership to curb abuses of holds, the secret hold remains a stain on the fabric of the Senate.

It is time for the whole Senate to consider our proposed standing order and speak as a body on this issue. If any Senator believes I am misguided in this, I welcome their discussion.

I have yet to hear a single good reason we should allow secrecy to creep into what ought to be a very public legislative process. In fact, public discussion on this matter is long overdue. If this practice that is in the shadows of legislation is to continue, let us at least say so publicly.

I can think of no better time to consider this long overdue measure than in the context of a bill titled the ``Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act.''

If we don't end this in a bill with this title, we are missing a chance that we have been waiting for for 10 years. I thank the chairman of the committee for that opportunity. That is why this measure is all about transparency and accountability.

The purpose of the underlying bill is to restore public confidence in Congress by making our actions transparent and accountable. Secret holds run contrary to both principles. They are done in complete secrecy and allow Senators to avoid public accountability for action. The underlying bill requires disclosure of earmarks in advance of conference negotiations and increased disclosure of trips and employment negotiations.

I ask my colleagues to support the Wyden-Grassley-Inhofe amendment so that we can use this one small step to restore confidence and have more public accountability.

Mr. President, today I am placing a hold on the nomination of James Lambright to serve as President of the Export- Import Bank of the United States.

I am placing this hold on Mr. Lambright's nomination as I have major concerns regarding the issuance of taxpayer-guaranteed credit insurance by the Export-Import Bank for an ethanol project in Trinidad and Tobago. Specifically, the approval of this credit insurance by the Export-Import Bank appeared to violate the Bank's authorizing statute.

Let me explain.

In March 2004, the Export-Import Bank approved the issuance of $9.87 million in taxpayer-guaranteed credit insurance to help Angostura Holdings Limited, of Trinidad and Tobago, finance the construction of an ethanol dehydration plant in Trinidad. The purpose of this credit insurance was to enable Angostura to purchase equipment to be used to dehydrate up to 100 million gallons of Brazilian ethanol annually. Angostura would then reexport the resulting dehydrated ethanol to the United States duty-free under the current Caribbean Basin Initiative trade preference program.

But section 635(e) of the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute-- the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945--states that the bank is not to provide credit or financial guarantees to expand production of commodities for export to the United States if the resulting production capacity is expected to compete with U.S. production of the same commodity and that the extension of such credit will cause substantial injury to U.S. producers of the same commodity. The statute goes on to provide that ``the extension of any credit or guarantee by the Bank will cause substantial injury if the amount of the capacity for production established, or the amount of the increase in such capacity expanded, by such credit or guarantee equals or exceeds 1 percent of United States production.''

As of 2004, when the credit guarantees for Angostura were approved, the total 100 million gallon capacity of the Angostura facility was nearly 4 percent of U.S. production. This amount clearly exceeded the 1-percent threshold for causing substantial injury to the U.S. ethanol industry as spelled out in the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute.

So it appeared to me that the approval of credit guarantees for Angostura by the Export-Import Bank violated the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute.

Moreover, as the amount financed by the Export-Import Bank was less than $10 million, no detailed economic impact analysis was conducted by the bank. I note that the amount approved by the Export-Import Bank $9.87 million was conveniently just below this $10 million threshold amount.

In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, Congress asked the Export-Import Bank for an explanation of the credit guarantees for Angostura. Specifically, the 2005 act required the Export-Import Bank to submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House containing an analysis of the economic impact on U.S. ethanol producers of the extension of credit and financial guarantees for the development of the ethanol dehydration plant in Trinidad and Tobago. Congress also required that this report determine whether such an extension would cause substantial injury to such producers, as defined in section 2(e)(4) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945.

In January of last year, the Export-Import Bank provided its report. In its report, the Export-Import Bank avoided the issue of whether its credit guarantees for Angostura caused substantial injury to U.S. producers, and thus whether the approval of these guarantees was in compliance with the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute. The Export-Import Bank avoided the issue by claiming that the Angostura plant will not ``produce'' dehydrated ethanol. Rather, the Export- Import Bank stated that this plant will merely ``process'' dehydrated ethanol by removing water from wet ethanol produced in Brazil, thus merely ``adding value'' to the wet ethanol from Brazil.

However, despite the semantics of the Export-Import Bank, the Angostura plant will clearly be producing dehydrated ethanol. This is common sense. An ethanol dehydration plant--of course--produces dehydrated ethanol.

Moreover, the Customs Service recognizes that ethanol dehydration plants in Caribbean Basin Initiative countries produce dehydrated ethanol.

While the Export-Import Bank currently does not have an inspector general, the conference report for the Foreign Operations appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006 directs the Export-Import Bank's inspector general--once appointed to look into this credit insurance approval. Specifically, the conference report provides that the inspector general shall provide a written analysis to the Finance Committee and the Committee on Appropriations, within 90 days of appointment, as to whether the loan guarantees provided to the ethanol dehydration plant in Trinidad and Tobago met the provisions of the Export-Import Bank's charter. The analysis shall include whether ``value added'' methodology is routinely used by the bank to determine whether a proposed loan guarantee or export credit meets the statutory test regarding the definition of substantial injury found in the bank's authorizing statute. The inspector general shall also make recommendations as to whether it is appropriate to use such methodology in making a determination of substantial injury.

As the Export-Import Bank currently does not have an inspector general, I am placing a hold on Mr. Lambert's nomination until such time that I receive assurances from him that, first, the Export-Import Bank will act quickly to appoint an inspector general, and second, that Mr. Lambert will see that the inspector general will indeed provide a written analysis on the credit insurance approval within 90 days of appointment.

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

Mr. President, a patriotic civil servant is going home. Mr. A. Ernest Fitzgerald has finally called it quits. His 42-year career, including Navy service in World War II, came to a close on Friday, March 3. He has walked out of the Pentagon for the last time. He has retired.

Although Mr. Fitzgerald's first name is Arthur, most of us know him fondly under the name of Ernie. Ernie is probably the most famous whistleblower of all time, and I think of him as the father of all whistleblowers, the chief whistleblower. He set an example for all of the whistleblowers who have followed in his footsteps.

Ernie is a man of great courage and integrity.

I dreamed for a long time that someday some duly certified whistleblower would be honored by a President, even this President, at a Rose Garden ceremony. Ernie is a perfect candidate for such a Rose Garden ceremony, but I don't think that he is going to get that honor. It may never happen. At least it may not happen in my lifetime. But of course I believe it should happen because that would be the right thing to do, to send a signal from the highest levels of Government all the way to the bowels of the bureaucracy that patriotic people who are willing to blow the whistle on something that is wrong in Government would be honored for being that patriotic person.

Courageous souls such as Ernie Fitzgerald make our Nation and our Government stronger and better. They help to strengthen and keep the public trust. They help to make the Government transparent and accountable, and that is exactly what the citizens of this country want and what the citizens of this country ought to expect.

That is why we must always help whistleblowers such as Ernie Fitzgerald. Being a whistleblower is a tough business. They need our constant support and protection because within the bureaucracy they are treated like a skunk at a picnic. Those, such as Ernie, who have stepped forward and put their careers and reputations on the line in the defense of truth in Government deserve the highest honor.

Ernie did not make it to the Rose Garden, but he got pretty close. He got the next best thing. He left the Pentagon with his dignity and honor intact.

In a moment I want to explain how that happened. But first I wish to speak briefly about what Ernie did because he was always a source of inspiration to this Senator. Early in my Senate career, I heard about Ernie Fitzgerald. His work convinced me that I needed to get involved in oversight, generally, and at that time specifically oversight of the Defense Department, oversight of the Pentagon. Ernie's work, along with that of a person by the name of Chuck Spinney, was a huge contribution. They were the inspiration behind my historic amendment to freeze the Defense budget that was approved by the Senate in May of 1985. Ernie was the inspiration behind my efforts to put the brakes on the spare parts overpricing.

Ernie was also the inspiration behind my efforts to expose and clean up the Department of Defense books of account and broken accounting practices. Ernie was the inspiration behind so many whistleblower protection laws that are now on the books.

Ernie's unwavering devotion to saving the taxpayers' money has always been an inspiration to this Senator. Ernie never lost sight of this lofty and honorable goal, not for one second. And he would pursue it to the end of the Earth, if that is where it took him. To Ernie, saving the taxpayers' money was never just a goal. It was much more than that. It was more like a calling to him. It was a matter of faith to him, keeping faith with the taxpayers, stopping waste of taxpayers; money was a religion to Ernie Fitzgerald.

Ernie had fellowship with the taxpayers.

He did everything in his power each day to ensure that not a penny was wasted and every cent was properly accounted for.

Ernie followed his calling in a place called the Pentagon--not exactly what I would call a taxpayer-friendly environment. That is the place that the world's most powerful generals and admirals call home. And the generals and admirals never looked kindly on the likes of a whistleblower named Ernie Fitzgerald. But that didn't phase Ernie one bit.

The Pentagon brass is praising him today as he leaves the Pentagon for good, but they hammered him relentlessly for what he was and for what he did. The Pentagon is the place where Ernie dug in his heels, took his stand, and kept the faith.

The most fateful day in the life of Ernie Fitzgerald was November 13, 1968. That was the day Erie appeared before Senator Proxmire's Joint Economic Committee to testify on the C-5 transport aircraft program. He was an official witness of the U.S. Air Force. And Ernie did the unthinkable--he ``committed truth.'' He told the Congress about a $12 billion C-5 cost overrun. Back then, $2 billion was real money.

Ernie's truthful testimony about the C-5 cost overrun created a firestorm of controversy, and that is what caused President Nixon to issue his famous order caught on those famous tapes. The quote was: ``Get rid of that SOB.'' For speaking the truth, Ernie paid the ultimate price: He got fired, he got blackballed, and he was put on the official hit list. His career was over. And that was November 13, 1968. For speaking the truth--that is what it was all about, just speak the truth--about a $2 billion cost overrun on an airplane that somehow people wanted to cover up. As most of us know, though, Ernie got his job back, but it took him 12 years to get his job back. That is how much whistleblowers are appreciated in the bureaucracy at the Pentagon, or anyplace else. And when he did get it back, it was not given back willingly; it had to be taken back. It took a court order signed by U.S. District Judge William B. Bryant on June 15, 1982. That is 14 years after he appeared to talk about the C-5 $2 billion cost overrun.

Judge Bryant's order made Ernie the Management Systems Deputy of the Air Force. It was a high-sounding title with far-reaching responsibilities. On paper, it looked like a perfect fit. Unfortunately, Ernie was never given the authority to perform the job specified in the court order. The ``over-dogs,'' as Ernie Fitzgerald called them, effectively isolated him then and the 25 years since. As far as I know, the only time Ernie was able to do his job was when he was officially detailed to my staff for short periods of time.

The last such project was 1997-1998 when Ernie worked with my staff on what we called the Joint Review of Internal Controls at the Defense Department. He and my staff examined several hundred invoices from an office in the Pentagon where fraud had occurred. They followed those invoices step by step through the entire cycle of transactions from purchase order to payment by the Treasury. They found overpayments, underpayments, erroneous payments, and even potentially fraudulent payments. No one payment had been done correctly.

One of the biggest problems uncovered had to do with ``remit'' addresses. Remit addresses are so important because that is where the money goes. The staff found people who were handling invoices and paying bills also had authority to put addresses on checks going out the door. That was a major violation of the separation-of-duties principle. It left the door wide open to fraud.

Ernie helped us close that door.

Despite constant bureaucratic roadblocks, Ernie went to his cubbyhole-

size office day in and day out for all those 25 years. Each day, he did what he could to keep the faith and honor his commitment to those taxpayers.

Then came another fateful day: September 12, last year. That was the day Judge Bryant, after 25 years, pulled the plug on Ernie's court order, precipitating another crisis in Ernie's life and bringing us to this place in time.

I feel like we have arrived at a very important point in time. We didn't make it to the Rose Garden this time, but we came pretty close. So we are making progress. Maybe next time.

Earlier, I promised to explain how we came close to the Rose Garden. On Monday, February 27, this year, the inspector general at the Defense Department presented our most famous whistleblower, Ernie Fitzgerald, with the Distinguished Service Medal. I do not know if anything like this has ever happened before. As I said a moment ago, Ernie is retiring with honor and dignity. One person has made all this happen: Mr. Tom Gimble, acting inspector general at the Department of Defense. After Judge Bryant struck down Ernie's court order after those 25 years, it was readily apparent that Ernie was in another tight spot. However, Ernie was willing to retire under the right conditions.

Tom Gimble, as acting inspector general, seized the initiative. He took charge of the negotiations between Ernie and the Air Force. He kept them moving in the right direction. He did everything he could to ensure that Ernie was treated fairly and given the full protection of the law. Under his able leadership, those negotiations were brought to a successful conclusion.

Mr. Gimble effectively brought Ernie in under the protective umbrella provided by the Office of Inspector General. He gave Ernie a safe haven in the IG's building--a place to work. He had Ernie's entire collection of official records moved to that secure facility. With the help of a team of document specialists provided by Mr. Gimble, Ernie was able to get the job done.

All of his records now have been shipped to the National Archives-- 400-plus boxes in all. In time, Ernie's papers will be open to the American people. They will be able to judge Ernie's work for themselves.

From the beginning of this process to the very end, all sorts of little kinks kept popping up all along the way. But Mr. Gimble was always there ready to step in and help iron them out. Mr. Gimble is the first inspector general to personally reach out to Ernie and help him in such meaningful ways.

Mr. Gimble, I stand before all my colleagues and say thank you from the bottom of my heart for what you did to help Ernie in these closing days of his career--after 42 years working for the Federal Government. I thank you for doing what inspector generals should do. You did that.

And Ernie Fitzgerald, I thank you, too, for what you did and for your courage and dedication to make our Government stronger and better and to help restore the public trust. I salute you as a person who more Americans ought to follow, that one person determined to make a difference can, in fact, make a difference.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am proud to say that I have recently discovered, almost literally in my own backyard, an Iowan who has received an honor of national significance. Mr. Edward Thomas, the head football coach at Aplington-Parkersburg High School, is the recipient of the 2005 NFL High School Coach of the Year award. He was honored with tickets to Super Bowl XL as well as monetary awards for himself and his football program.

Coach Thomas has been coaching for 34 years, 31 of those at Aplington-Parkersburg. His overall record at Aplington-Parkersburg is 249 wins and 58 losses. He has guided his teams to the State playoffs 15 times, winning 2 State titles and has won 15 conference or district championships during that time. In his 34 years of coaching, he has won such awards as the National Federation High School Football Coach of the Year in 2004, Northeast Iowa Coach of the Year 5 times and was inducted into the Iowa High School Football Coaches' Association Hall of Fame in 1990. With an enrollment of almost 300 at Aplington- Parkersburg, Coach Thomas has produced 4 active NFL players--Detroit Lions defensive end Jared DeVries, Jacksonville Jaguars guard Brad Meester, Kansas City Chiefs center Casey Wiegmann and Green Bay Packers defensive end Aaron Kampman.

Coach Thomas also teaches life lessons and Christian principles while emphasizing the adversity and teamwork of football as a reflection of life in the real world. As Aaron Kampman put it, ``He strives to make men better through the game of football.'' Kampman also stated, ``You get goosebumps playing for the guy, the essence of playing under the lights on Friday night he brought that to the forefront.''

While the Aplington-Parkersburg Falcons are rivals to my hometown team, the Dike-New Hartford Wolverines, I am very proud that an Iowan has been honored in this way. I offer my sincere congratulations to Coach Thomas on this most prestigious honor and wish him continued success.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of a bill I introduced today that may be cited as the ``America's Business Choice Act'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of a bill I introduced today that may be cited as the ``America's Business Choice Act'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I want to address my fellow Senators, in cooperation with my friend, Senator Baucus from Montana, on an issue that our respective staffs have been working on together for a long time. As chairman of the Finance Committee and as ranking member, we are releasing today a report. We come to the floor with our duties in mind to our constituents, to Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries, and to all Americans, to speak of urgent matters that should concern all of us.

For more than 2 years, I have followed, with increasing concern, the performance of the Food and Drug Administration. It seems as though every week, if not every day, some new danger or risk is brought to light about an FDA-approved drug or device. As chairman and ranking member of the committee, Senator Baucus and I have a responsibility to American taxpayers to ensure that Medicare and Medicaid programs pay for medical products that have been appropriately approved in accordance with all laws and regulations. Whether a product is safe, whether a product is effective is not only a major public safety concern; it also has important financial concerns.

We understand there is a human element to the Food and Drug Administration's approval process. As a society, we recognize the anguish of families who must rely on the development of innovative, experimental, new medical products and treatments that may or may not save the life of a loved one. Our Nation is lucky to have a private marketplace that is incredibly resourceful and prolific in the field of medicine. An integral role of the Food and Drug Administration is to get these potentially lifesaving products to the market without undue delay. We also have a Government-regulated system where patients have the option to receive potentially lifesaving but unproven products by participating voluntarily in clinical trials. In the end, however, our Nation's well-founded medical system, despite its weaknesses, must always rest on sound science.

The report we are releasing today focuses on the FDA's approval process for medical devices. It is indisputable that all medical devices carry risks, but Food and Drug Administration approval is still considered the gold standard for safety and effectiveness. However, our committee staff report raises legitimate questions about the FDA's decision to approve a specific medical device. Last February, a number of concerns were raised to our committee about an implantable device called the vegus nerve stimulator or VNS, as I will refer to it. This product, VNS, is manufactured by a company called Cyberonics. Senator Baucus and I asked our committee staff to review the concerns that were given to us and report their findings. This report has three major findings which I will summarize briefly.

First, the Food and Drug Administration approved VNS for treatment- resistant depression, a new indication for this surgically implanted device. That was based upon a senior manager overruling more than 20 Food and Drug Administration scientists, medical, and safety officers, as well as managers, who reviewed the data on VNS. The high-level official approved the device despite a resolute conclusion by many at the FDA that the device did not demonstrate a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.

Second, the Food and Drug Administration has not made public the level of internal dissent involved in this device approval, despite the fact that the FDA has publicized differences of scientific opinion within the agency when it has announced other controversial regulatory decisions.

Third, the Food and Drug Administration has not ensured that the public has all the accurate, science-based information on the safety and effectiveness of the VNS for treatment-resistant depression. So health care providers, relying on the FDA's information about this device, may not be able to convey complete risk information to each patient.

In the end, this senior Food and Drug Administration official not only overruled more than 20 Food and Drug Administration employees, but he stated to our committee staff that the public would not be made aware of the scientific dissent over whether the device is reasonably safe and effective. Until today, this official's detailed conclusions remain confidential and unavailable to the public. We are releasing these confidential conclusions in the appendix to the report. Some of his own conclusions raise serious questions in our minds. For example, I quote from his override memorandum:

I think it needs to be stated clearly and unambiguously

that [certain VNS data] failed to reach, or even come close

to reaching, statistical significance with respect to its

primary endpoint. I think that one has to conclude that,

based on [that] data, either the device has no effect, or, if

it does have an effect, that in order to measure that effect

a longer period of follow-up is required.

The events and circumstances surrounding the Food and Drug Administration's review and approval of VNS for treatment-resistant depression, which you will find detailed in this report we are releasing, raises critical questions about the Food and Drug Administration's so-called ``authoritative'' approval process. I am greatly concerned that the Food and Drug Administration standard for approval may not have been met here. If that is the case, it raises further difficult questions, including whether Medicare and Medicaid dollars should be used to pay for this device now.

Accordingly, we are forwarding the report to Secretary Leavitt, Administrator McClellan, and Acting Commissioner von Eschenbach for their consideration and comment. These are difficult matters that deserve their full attention.

Before I close, I commend the commitment and dedication of the more than 20 FDA scientists who tried to do the right thing in this case, as they probably do in every case, and not stray from evidence-based science. I applaud their effort on behalf of the American people.

I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary of the report be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor for my colleague.

Mr. President, yesterday and a few weeks ago, I invoked the movie ``Groundhog Day'' starring Bill Murray to provide a perspective on consideration of our tax reconciliation package. For the edification of my esteemed colleagues and other interested parties, I ask unanimous consent that an article originally published in the February 14, 2005, issue of ``National Review'' titled, ``A Movie for All Time,'' be printed in the Record. This article provides some information on the film and its enduring popularity.

Mr. President, would it be in order to call up my motion on the AMT and the capital gains dividend?

I have 1 minute?

Mr. President, 16 million additional American families could find themselves subject to the alternative minimum tax if we do not act quickly. Failure to pass a minimum level of alternative minimum tax relief, as was provided in the Senate-passed reconciliation bill, is not an option. In fact, I support full AMT repeal. Some of my colleagues are creating a false choice when they suggest that in order to provide AMT relief we need to remove incentives that encourage economic growth. We can design a tax package which will include dividends, capital gains, AMT, and a 1-year extension for all expiring tax relief, all within that $70 billion limit. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this motion which provides relief for alternative minimum tax and capital gains and dividends as well.

I yield.

Mr. President, if I have 10 seconds----

I am only going to use 10 seconds. I hope my friend from Montana will agree with me on this, that we do have differences on this one part, the capital gains part of this bill, but I think we agree on everything else in the bill. I hope people listening to Senator Baucus and I maybe differing on this one point will remember that on most everything that goes on in our committee, we agree. I do not want them to get a distorted view of our friendship and our working together on this legislation.

I yield back my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, this vote has nothing to do with Medicare or Medicaid. This motion by Senator Kennedy calls for a tax increase in 2008 on millions of Americans. Critics of lower rates always want to persecute millionaires and at the same time punish everyone else trying to save money. The lower rates on capital gains have benefited low- and middle-income families in a very meaningful way and reduced the tax burden on citizens. They have contributed to our economic recovery and continue to help our economy grow. They have made capital investment in America more competitive so we can be competitive with global competition. They have helped impose transparency and discipline on corporate managers which is critical to protecting investors and workers. Business investors need certainty.

We need to act now. For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to vote against this motion.

I point out something that directly involves the State of Massachusetts. We have heard the same old charge, that capital gains and dividends are only for rich folks. These charts behind me assert the opposite. According to Internal Revenue Service statistics on income for the State of Massachusetts, there are 589,000 individuals and families who benefit from the reduced tax on dividends, and 212,000 individuals and families benefit from the reduced tax on capital gains. There are not that many millionaires in that State regardless of how rich that State is. Not all of these folks are superrich. They are people like the average American benefiting from this. I don't know why anyone wants to persecute a few millionaires and punish everyone else.

Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Reed's attention to the issue of funding for our military. Proper funding for those serving our country should not be controversial. The method of providing this funding should not be made into a controversial issue, and that is where the controversy is.

My colleague suggests that in order to provide funding for our military, we need to eliminate a tax benefit that doesn't even arise until 2009. Look at how ridiculous this motion is. How can you provide funds that are so badly needed today to ensure that we meet the operational needs of our courageous military service personnel when it won't be funded until 2009? I remind you that last night all of us voted for my amendment to support the operational needs of our military that provides the same benefits but doesn't raise taxes.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the Reed motion. In addition, I remind my friend from Rhode Island that there are 79,000 families in his State that benefit from not having the tax on dividends at 15 percent.

Mr. President, I would like to inform the Senator from New Jersey that his motion would increase taxes on people in New Jersey through dividends of $838,000 and capital gains of $270,000.

If we don't do something about AMT, 600,000 people from New Jersey suffer; if we don't have the college tuition tax deduction, 121,000; and teacher deduction, 127,000.

I don't know how anybody would want to increase taxes on people in their States by that amount of money. If you take the approach of the Senator from New Jersey and have to offset all of these things, there are not enough offsets to go around to take care of the 100 ideas we have of where taxes ought to be reduced.

We now have taxes of 18 percent coming into the country into the Gross National Product for a 60-year high.

How high do taxes have to be to satisfy the Senator from New Jersey that taxes are high enough?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in recess until 2:15 today for weekly policy luncheons.