Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee for his kind words, and my kind words go to reemphasize the close working relationship over a period of 6 years, now going into the seventh year, he and I have had being leaders of both the Republican and Democratic members of the Finance Committee. I thank him very much for continuing that working relationship while he was chairman a few years ago and now chairman again. That is why this committee produces legislation that eventually gets to the President. I thank the Senator very much. The State Children's Health Insurance Program--and people watching will hear the acronym SCHIP used often--is the product of a Republican- led Congress 10 years ago, 1997, and it is sunsetting this year. That is why we are here reauthorizing and bringing more kids into the Children's Health Insurance Program. It is very much a targeted program designed to provide affordable health coverage for low-income children of working families. These families make too much to qualify for Medicaid but struggle to afford private insurance if they can even get it. It is important that we reauthorize this targeted program for children. The Finance Committee bill proposes a reasonable approach for reauthorizing SCHIP that is the product of months of bipartisan work in the committee. Chairman Baucus referred to innumerable meetings. We don't keep track of the number of meetings we have, but for every meeting Senator Baucus and I have been involved in, usually Senator Hatch and Senator Rockefeller were there as well. In the meantime, including a lot of weekends of work, the staffs of the respective Senators were involved in negotiations to get us to the floor this day. Once again, I emphasize what I heard Senator Rockefeller say. This is a bipartisan bill voted out of committee on a vote of 17 to 4. It is a compromise. I think it is the best of what is possible. Clearly Members on the left would want to do more. My colleagues on the right want to do less and go in a different direction. Neither got what they wanted. That is pretty much the essence of a compromise, not only on SCHIP but the essence of compromise in the Senate probably over two centuries of the Senate's history. This compromise bill maintains the focus on low-income, uninsured children and adds coverage of an additional 3.2 million low-income children. Although I have been pleased with the bipartisan cooperation that led us to the substance of the bill, I can't say the same for the way in which the bill is now being debated on the floor. Without participation or consultation, the Democratic leadership decided to use a so-called shell revenue bill, the House small business tax relief bill, as a vehicle for debate. The Democratic leadership will correctly maintain that the reason for this unusual maneuver is a strategic decision to accelerate a couple of procedural steps. That is nothing new in the Senate. You can't find fault with trying to shorten up the process because the Senate process is already long enough. But since there is no House-passed SCHIP revenue bill in the Senate now and not likely to be one by the time the Senate debate ends this week, the Democratic leadership wants to take a shortcut now. While I share the goals of completing Senate action on SCHIP and doing it this week, I would rather not be debating a general tax bill. This shortcut means, then, that it is legitimate for Members on both sides of the aisle to raise unrelated tax amendments. That was not the posture we took in committee. In fact, we discouraged that, and we got both Republicans and Democrats to agree to voting this bill out as a health insurance bill and not as a general tax bill except for the provisions that relate to tobacco. Of course, now we are on the floor. The stage is set very differently. When I found out about this maneuver from the Senate Republican leader, Mr. McConnell, I urged the Democratic leadership, through Senator Baucus, to reconsider. I feared this shortcut would only widen the playing field for the first stages of the debate. Obviously, my counsel was rejected. It is disappointing but so be it. Despite my objections to this procedural maneuver, I do support the Senate Finance Committee bill and will have more to say about it after the cloture vote this afternoon. In fact, I will have a lot to say about it. I will have a lot to say about particularly people who believe we have gone too far. I want to make very clear that it would be impossible to do what the President said he wanted to do under the amount of money he wanted to put into this program, which was $5 billion over what is presently being expended. Obviously, we are way above that at $35 billion, but we were able to do what the President wanted to do and cover some more kids. I will go into details on that later on. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am here today to speak about S. 1082, the Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act, and H.R. 2900, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. The Senate passed S. 1082 in May and the House passed H.R. 2900 earlier this month. As the House and Senate go into conference and work to resolve differences between these two bills, I urge my colleagues to keep in mind the public's interest. Both bills contain provisions that attempt to address some of the problems that have been plaguing the FDA over the past 3 years. Some of these issues are better addressed by the Senate bill and others by the House bill. I am going to spend the next few minutes to comment on what the bills don't do and point out some of the provisions that I believe are important to improving drug safety at the FDA that will benefit all Americans. Two months ago, I offered amendment No. 1039 to S. 1082, because I believed--and still believe--that S. 1082 does not address a fundamental problem at the Food and Drug Administration--the lack of equality between the preapproval and postapproval offices of the agency, the Office of New Drugs and the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology, respectively. The Office of New Drugs approves drugs for the market, while the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology monitors and assesses the safety of the drugs once they are on the market. My amendment was intended to curb delays in FDA actions when it comes to safety. The Institute of Medicine recognized the imbalance between the Office of New Drugs and the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology and recommended joint authority between these two offices for postapproval regulatory actions related to safety. My amendment did just that. While I believe an independent postmarketing safety center is still the best solution to the problem, joint postmarketing decisionmaking between the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology and the Office of New Drugs at least would allow the office with the postmarketing safety expertise to have a say in what drug safety actions the FDA would take. Unfortunately, this amendment lost by one vote. But the fact that it lost by such a narrow margin demonstrates that many of my Senate colleagues also recognize the seriousness of this problem and believe action by Congress is necessary. I have seen time and time again in my investigations that serious safety problems that emerge after a drug is on the market do not necessarily get prompt attention from the Office of New Drugs, the office that approves drugs to go on the market in the first place. We saw this with Vioxx and more recently with the diabetes drug Avandia. FDA has disregarded and downplayed important concerns and warnings from its own best scientists. We saw evidence of that in the way FDA treated Dr. Andrew Mosholder's findings on antidepressants and Dr. David Graham's findings on Vioxx. The FDA even attempted to undermine the publication of Dr. Graham's findings in the journal Lancet. My current review of FDA's handling of Avandia has unearthed concerns similar to those we have seen in the past--a situation where FDA ignored its own postmarketing safety experts and once again left the public in the dark regarding potential, serious health risks. Not only did the FDA disregard the concerns and recommendations from the office responsible for postmarketing surveillance, but I have found that it also attempted to suppress scientific dissent. As I have said many times before, FDA employees dedicated to postmarketing drug safety should be able to express their opinions in writing and independently without fear of retaliation, reprimand, or reprisal. But in the past 2 months, I have had to write to the FDA regarding the suppression of dissent from not one but two FDA officials involved in the review of Avandia. Last month, I expressed concerns about FDA's treatment of the former Deputy Director of the Division of Drug Risk Evaluation. I urged the Commissioner to take appropriate corrective actions. That deputy director had been verbally reprimanded because she signed off on a recommendation that a black box warning be placed on Avandia for congestive heart failure. This week, I wrote to the Commissioner about a senior medical officer in the Office of New Drugs who was removed from the review of potential cardiovascular safety problems associated with Avandia. This medical officer also believed that there was enough evidence to support a black box warning on Avandia regarding congestive heart failure. But I guess that FDA management just did not want to hear about drug safety problems--again. Of the two bills up for discussion, neither the Senate nor the House version will give postmarketing surveillance the equal footing it deserves with drug approval. But I appreciate the attempt by my colleagues in the House to provide some transparency in FDA's postmarketing drug safety system. Transparency is the key to accountability. In particular, I welcome the provision in H.R. 2900 that would require FDA to report to Congress on drug safety recommendations received in consultation with, as well as the reports from, the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology. If FDA does not act on a recommendation from the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology or it takes a different action, the agency would be required to provide its justification to Congress. In its report released last fall, the Institute of Medicine called for specific safety-related performance goals in the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, PDUFA, of 2007 to restore balance between speeding access to drugs and ensuring their safety. I have heard from FDA employees that because of the PDUFA deadlines, the staff in the Office of New Drugs is under tremendous time pressure to approve new drugs quickly, so safety concerns often needed to be ``fit in'' wherever they could. This reinforces a point I have frequently made in the past--the Office of New Drugs doesn't give postmarketing drug safety the attention or priority it deserves. The House bill attempts to address this, in part, by requiring that postmarketing safety performance measures be developed that are ``as measurable and rigorous as the ones already developed for premarket review.'' S. 1082 requires that the Secretary assess and implement the risk evaluation and management strategies in consultation with the Office of New Drugs and the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology. It also calls for a report to Congress on the assessment of that coordination. The requirement that these two offices be consulted doesn't necessarily change the status quo. The Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology is still just a consultant to the Office of New Drugs, and the Office of New Drugs decides--and will continue to decide--what, if any, action will be taken to address a safety issue. But I hope that requiring that the office responsible for postmarketing surveillance be at the table would encourage FDA to better define the role of this office on drug safety matters and give this office a greater voice, albeit a limited one. Last fall, the Government Accountability Office reported that the Office of New Drugs typically sets the agenda and chooses the presenters at FDA's scientific advisory meetings. The GAO recommended that the role of the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology be clarified. After all, this office is the expert on postmarketing safety matters. This week, Senator Baucus and I sent a letter to the FDA to express concerns regarding an upcoming advisory committee meeting on Avandia. As usual, the Office of New Drugs is setting the agenda here. We pointed out to the FDA that it doesn't make sense that it is the drug approval office and not the postmarketing safety office that controls the advisory committee meeting convened for the purpose of discussing postmarketing safety matters. In addition to the provisions I have mentioned so far, both the Senate and House bills would give FDA the much needed authorities to require labeling changes and postapproval studies; however, the House bill includes additional provisions outside of the risk evaluation and management strategy process that is established under both bills. The House bill specifically enables the Secretary to initiate action on drug labeling and postapproval studies. For example, outside of the risk evaluation and management strategy process, the Secretary may require a manufacturer to conduct postapproval research to assess or identify potential health risks. Another provision that would improve transparency at the FDA is a provision in the Senate bill that requires FDA to post on its Web site, the ``action package'' for the approval of a new drug within 30 days of approval. That action package would contain any document generated by the FDA related to the review of the drug application, including a summary review of all conclusions and, among other things, any disagreements and how they were resolved. Further, in light of the many allegations that FDA safety reviewers are sometimes coerced into changing their scientific findings, I believe it is critical that the following provision in S. 1082 survives the legislative conference process--the provision that states that a scientific review of a drug application must not be changed by FDA managers or the reviewer once it is final. S. 1082 also requires FDA to seek outside expert opinions on drug safety questions at least two times a year from its Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and other advisory committees. Another important provision in S. 1082 is a requirement that FDA establish and make publicly available clear, written policies on the review and clearance of scientific publications by FDA employees. Some of the stronger provisions regarding the expansion of the clinical trial registry come from the House bill. While both bills address clinical trial registration, the House bill adopts a much broader definition of applicable clinical trials. ``Thus, information about many more trials would be made publicly available through the Internet under the House bill.'' Clinical trial registries serve an important function--they foster transparency and accountability in health-related research and development by ensuring that the scientific and medical communities and the general public have access to basic information about clinical trials. Mandatory posting of clinical trial information would help prevent companies from withholding clinically important information about their products. I have heard from some scientists that they can't disclose the findings of their studies because the data belongs to the manufacturer. It is up to the manufacturer to decide if and when the results would be published, and those results don't always see the light of day. But scientists need access to all of the evidence to conduct a full and independent review of a product's safety. However, we know that relevant data are not always made available for further review by independent scientists. While the House bill does not require manufacturers to share its data with other scientists, it does require the sponsor of a study to report whether or not agreements were made restricting individuals from discussing or publishing trial results. In addition, for FDA's new authorities to be effective, there has to be strong civil monetary penalties. In May, I also offered amendment No. 998 to S. 1082. That amendment passed. Amendment No. 998 provides for the application of stronger civil monetary penalties for violations of approved risk evaluation and mitigation strategies. While significant monetary penalties may be imposed under the House bill for continuous violations, the minimum penalty for a violation under the Senate bill would be higher because of my amendment. We need to make sure that we're giving FDA, the watchdog, some bite to go with the bark. If monetary penalties are nothing more than the cost of doing business, you won't change behavior. More importantly, you can't deter intentional bad behavior. In closing, I would like to thank Senators Kennedy and Enzi and Congressmen Dingell and Barton for their tremendous efforts on these bills. We have an opportunity to reform, improve, and reestablish the FDA as the gold standard for drug safety. If Congress is going to make meaningful changes to the FDA to increase transparency and accountability, it is critical that the provisions I have discussed today make it into the bill that comes out of conference. To do less would deny the American people safer drugs when they reach into their medicine cabinets.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I understand we are going to have a group of Senators visiting Greenland this weekend to see the effects of global warming on glaciers. I am sure they will visit areas where you can see icebergs breaking off glaciers, presumably more frequently than normal, due to global warming, although this phenomena has always occurred to some extent. Perhaps these Senators will also visit with local residents, such as farmers who have been able to graze their sheep longer during this warmer weather that now seems to be there. However, I wonder if, for a little historical perspective, the group will be visiting the Viking ruins on the southern tip of Greenland. As someone interested in history, I think such a visit would be very fascinating. I have always believed that we can learn a lot from history, so I am sure some value could be found in such an excursion to the Viking ruins at the southern tip of Greenland. As many of my colleagues may be aware, archeologists have dug through the permafrost to excavate the remains of Viking farms, part of two major settlements that at one time may have had up to 5,000 inhabitants, and those settlements, presumably, lasted for over 400 years. As we all know, Greenland was first settled by Erik the Red, who encouraged fellow Norsemen to join him in colonizing the empty land that we call Greenland today. These men grew grain and grazed sheep and cows in pastures. They prospered, at least at first, building structures like a great hall and a cathedral, as well as homes and barns. The remains of about 400 stone structures still exist on Greenland. For reasons I am not sure are fully understood, sometime around the end of the 15th century, the Viking settlement in Greenland disappeared. No one knows precisely why the Vikings disappeared from Greenland, but it appears from the archeological evidence that life got somewhat harder and the climate became cooler and the land more difficult to farm, until Greenland could no longer sustain the Viking settlements. I had an opportunity to be reminded of this as I saw on the Discovery Channel this week where they were talking about a small ice age overcoming the Northern Hemisphere during the late 1400s, 1500s, and 1600s. Maybe that had something to do with the Viking settlements disappearing from Greenland. But 500 years later, we are able to catch a glimpse of what their life must have been like by digging through a farm buried in that permafrost on Greenland. Only a little more time has passed since the Viking settlements disappeared until today, than from the time they were established there in Greenland until they were abandoned. Contemplating the passage of time over centuries humbles us by putting our own short lifespan in historical perspective. It makes us realize that God is ultimately in control and the activities of human beings today are one tiny part of that divine plan. I think, from time to time, we need to reflect that way, which is why I hope my colleagues visiting Greenland this weekend have an opportunity to take time out of their schedule to visit the Viking ruins. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I visited with the managers about speaking on some amendments. The first amendment I am going to reference, I will just speak about it because it is still in Legislative Counsel, but we will have it shortly. That probably means tomorrow. But I wish to alert people to a problem we have with Homeland Security that I would like to fix through amendment. The amendment would restrict the Department of Homeland Security from using any funds appropriated in this bill for the enforcement of interim final chemical security regulations relating to the stored quantity of propane gas between 7,500 pounds and 100,800 pounds. I will put this in language that people, at least in rural America, can understand. We have a situation where you don't have natural gas, and that is on most farms, a lot of small businesses, and small towns. Homes are heated with propane, 500-gallon tanks that are somewhere on the property, usually behind the house or, in the case of a farm, out by the grain bins where you dry your corn or other grains using propane gas. Things of that nature are what I am talking about. Let me be very clear; my amendment is limited and narrowly tailored in that it only limits use of funds for enforcing one listed chemical. That one listed chemical is propane. Some people refer to it as LP gas, liquid propane gas--one and all the same. It would allow the Department to use funds to enforce the regulation for larger facilities, things that can honestly be said could be used for terrorist activity, but not the propane tank behind some farmhouse or by some grain bin. This amendment is necessary to ensure that these regulations truly protect our homeland but not burden farmers and small businesses and create a bigger problem with regard to propane security that I will mention in a minute. This final rule was published by the Department of Homeland Security on April 9, 2007, and became effective June 8 of this year. These regulations were required by Congress as part of the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill of 2007 and are known as the chemical facility antiterrorism standards. The regulations include an appendix that lists chemicals of interest to the Department and the stored quantities that will trigger reporting and screening requirements for those who house the listed chemicals. Included in the list of chemicals of interest is propane stored in quantities greater than 7,500 pounds. Propane is used by virtually every arm of agriculture, from small family farms to large agribusinesses across the country. Propane is used to dry grain, to heat facilities for livestocks and poultry, and to heat thousands of rural homes across the country. This listed quantity of 7,500 pounds is roughly 1,785 gallons. For those who are not from rural America, the typical rural home has at least one thousand-gallon tank for heating and maybe has two or three of these tanks for home heating and cooking, depending upon the size of the home. Some family farms may have a home tank and multiple farm tanks. Under the current regulation and thresholds, these rural homes and farms would qualify as a chemical facility and would have to complete what is known as the ``top screen'' process to register the site as a chemical facility. These are not homes in large metropolitan areas; they are rural homes where the nearest neighbors could be miles away. But under the current regulation, counting all tanks on one property, they would be subject to the screening requirements and also subject to penalties if they failed to complete the screen. Most people listening to me are probably saying: So what. If the Department lists the chemicals, these folks should register. Well, in its own regulatory analysis--I am quoting from the Department now--the Department calculates that the average cost to complete the top screen process will be between $2,300 and $3,500 per screen. That is not a lot of money to some large chemical facility, but to John Q. Public who owns three tanks on his farm to heat his home as well as to heat his sheds and barns and maybe dry grain, $2,300 to $3,500 is very real money. Further, the top screen requires individuals to fill out a lengthy form that is highly detailed and may require help from attorneys to ensure that the forms are filled out properly. Once this is completed, the Department then makes a determination if the site will need to complete a security vulnerability assessment. If this assessment is necessary, the Department then determines if a site needs a site security plan for chemical security. The bottom line is that many rural homes, farms, and small businesses could be required to pay $2,300 to $3,500 as just a preliminary step to determine whether they are ``high risk'' for a terrorist attack. These lengthy forms, complex requirements, and high costs pose a harsh, undue burden upon rural America; hence my amendment and hence my begging for consideration of this from my colleagues. I also believe this regulation has a possibility of increasing threats to our country as opposed to making it safer. As written, this rule and the current quantities of propane may lead many homeowners, farmers, small businesspeople to limit how full they might keep their onsite storage tanks. For example, a home with multiple tanks may only fill a backup tank part of the way to stay under the threshold so they do not have to fill out the top screen. Now, as a result of that, that home, that small business, that farm may have to increase the number of times its tanks are filled once or twice during the winter months. This increase in the number of tank fills--because they are only going to be partially filled--means the number of trips propane trucks make is very much increased, leading to more propane tankers per business and more propane tankers going down our highways. Now, I ask all of you to consider, what is a more vulnerable threat to America, John Q. Public's family home in rural Iowa--or in any other State--or an increase in hundreds, maybe thousands, of extra propane tankers on America's highways and roads? Now, I tried to solve this problem before this amendment. On June 25, 2007, I sent a letter to Secretary Chertoff asking him to consider the impact of including propane in quantities of 7,500 pounds in the regulations. I asked Secretary Chertoff to consider including an exemption for rural homes, farms, and small businesses that store and provide propane in excess of 7,500 pounds. To date, I have only received a response saying the Department is ``giving careful consideration'' to my letter. Now, I appreciate the careful consideration being given to my letter, but I wish to know what is being done to ensure there is no undue burden placed upon rural Americans and that these rules have the impact that is intended. We all want to ensure our homeland is as safe as possible, but we need to do so without overburdening rural Americans and threatening the growth of a small business. Further, as I pointed out, there is an additional possible safety concern that may be a consequence of the regulation. As such, I will offer an amendment that would prohibit the use of any funds to the Department to enforce the current regulations for propane when the site of that propane has more than 7,500 pounds but less than 1,800 pounds, until it amends these regulations to provide an exemption for rural homesteads, agricultural producers, and small business concerns. Again, this amendment is narrowly tailored only toward propane and does not impact enforcement of the regulations for other listed toxic chemicals. Additionally, this amendment includes safety provisions to ensure that if a threat is imminent to rural America, the Department can inform Congress of such threat and continue with its current regulations. This amendment is necessary to ensure that Government regulations meet a commonsense test and do not unduly burden rural America. Amendment No. 2444 to Amendment No. 2383 Mr. President, I am now going to go to an amendment I do have written and would like to offer. I send amendment No. 2444 to the desk and ask for its consideration. Mr. Inhofe should be listed as a cosponsor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GRASSLEY. This amendment to this appropriations bill is to strengthen our efforts to verify if people in the United States are legal to work in this country. Without a doubt, we have an illegal immigration problem. People are crossing our borders each day to live and work in the United States. Some individuals may have innocent motives, some may not. Some may be living in the shadows and wish to do our country harm. We do not live in a pre-9/11 world anymore. We must do all we can to protect our country. That is why I am proposing this amendment. It would do two things very appropriate in the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. It would require the entire Department of Homeland Security to use the basic pilot program--also known as the electronic employment verification system. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made it unlawful for employers to knowingly hire and employ aliens not eligible to work. It required employers to check the identity and work eligibility documents of all employees. The easy availability of counterfeit documents has made a mockery of the 1986 bill. Fake documents are produced by the millions and can be obtained very cheaply. In response to the illegal hiring of immigrants, Congress created the basic pilot program in 1996. This program allows employers to check the status of their workers by checking one's Social Security number and alien identification number against Social Security Administration and Homeland Security databases. The immigration bill before the Senate last year and this year would have required all employers to use the basic pilot program over a period of time by phasing it in. Both the administration and Congress were poised to pass legislation mandating participation in this program. It has been argued that the employment verification system is crucial to enforcing the laws already on the books. Many say the system is a needed tool for employers to check the eligibility of their workers. Since 1996, the system has been updated, the system has been improved. It is a Web-based program, and employers can go online quickly and very easily when hiring an individual. Employers in all 50 States can use the program, and it is voluntary for the private sector. Currently, over 18,000 employers use the basic pilot program. Under current law, however, the Federal Government is supposed to be using the employment verification system--emphasis upon ``current law'' and ``supposed to be using.'' We are talking about the Federal Government as an employer and whether we are setting a good example for the private sector on checking whether people are legally in this country if they are going to work for us. Of the 18,000 users I have mentioned, Homeland Security says 403 Federal agencies are using this pilot program. But my colleagues will be shocked to hear that very few of the 22 agencies at the Department--the Department of Homeland Security--are actually participating in this program. I asked Secretary Chertoff in January of this very year about requiring all agencies to use this system and extending the requirement to contractors who do business with the Federal Government. The Department of Homeland Security responded by saying these 403 Federal agencies are participating in the basic pilot program. The Department said it was also on track to make sure all agencies were using this system by the end of the fiscal year. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, to have printed in the Record my letter to the Secretary and the Department's response.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Since receiving the letter from Secretary Chertoff, this is what I have found out: that this response--that 403 Federal agencies are using the program--was deliberately misleading. In fact, congressional offices make up to 99 percent of the Federal users. Of the 411 or more Federal Government users, 400 are congressional offices--136 in the Senate and 264 in the House. So I am taking issue with the Department for their response to me and feel this is deliberately misleading the Congress on the use of the basic pilot program--when I get back a letter that says 403 Federal agencies are using the program, and 99 percent of them are here on Capitol Hill, not downtown. According to staff at the Citizenship and Immigration Service, only 11 executive branch agencies are using the program--only 11--and only 5 of the 22 agencies at Homeland Security are using the program--only 5. The President visited a Dunkin' Donuts shop last year. The company announced all of its franchises would use the basic pilot program to verify their workers. If Dunkin' Donuts can use the system, so can the Federal Government, particularly the Departments with the mission of protecting the homeland. We ought to be setting an example, the Federal Government, for all employers. But within the Federal Government, the very department enforcing the law, suggesting it is being used, ought to set the example. I am ashamed to say the Department of Homeland Security--the most valuable component of the executive branch in securing our Nation from terrorism--then is setting a very bad example. Congress and the administration must be a model of good employment practices for the rest of the country. My amendment is needed to push executive branch participation in this program. Now, there is a second part to my amendment. It would extend this principle to contractors who do work for the Federal Government. Because the second part of the amendment would require all contractors--in just the Department of Homeland Security--to use the basic pilot program to check the eligibility of their workers. Now, I think it ought to go beyond contractors for the Department of Homeland Security, but we are working on the Homeland Security appropriations bill so I am limiting it to that. It is my opinion that those who do business with Homeland Security agencies should also be required to use the electronic employment verification system. They may be private-sector people, but they are working for the Federal Government and they are in place of Federal employees. There have been many examples of aliens illegally in the country working for Government contractors and being allowed to work in sensitive areas. I gave a number of examples last week during consideration of the Defense authorization bill when I tried to apply this same principle to that bill when it was up. But the Department of Defense, I want you to know, is not the only culprit. This week, a man from Houston was sentenced for harboring illegal aliens, some of whom had access to an Alexandria airbase and Louisiana National Guard facility under a Federal Emergency Management Agency construction contract. The company employed 30 to 40 workers, contracted with FEMA, and was able to send illegal aliens to a worksite where they had access to a National Guard facility and airbase. There were many news stories about undocumented individuals working in the construction industry in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Then there was ``Operation Tarmac,'' launched by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2002, to enhance security at our airports and remove undocumented immigrants from these critical facilities. The operation resulted in investigations of hundreds of thousands of people and more than 900 arrests of unauthorized workers. Aliens illegally in this country were working as janitors, baggage checkers, and luggage handlers. Whether it is FEMA or the Transportation Security Administration or Border Patrol or the Citizenship and Immigration Service, we must make sure those hired by the agencies are legally able to work in the United States. While Immigration and Customs Enforcement has taken some steps to find unauthorized workers at secure sites, illegal aliens should not be hired in the first place. We cannot allow people illegally in our county to check our bags or process immigration benefits. One way to get at that problem, then, is to require Departments, particularly the Department of Homeland Security, to use the basic pilot program up front. There is no cost to employers. Instead, the American public will be more protected than it is today. Earlier this year, the Senate voted unanimously to debar employers from Government contracts if they are found to hire aliens illegally in the country. That vote signified an overwhelming opinion that our Government should only be doing business with those who take our immigration laws very seriously. Therefore, this part of my amendment should not be problematic. I hope my amendment can be considered this week. It is not overly expansive. It is to the Department we are appropriating money for. I don't believe it is overly burdensome because the Federal Government is preaching to the private sector. They are preaching to the other Government agencies that we ought to be doing it. We in Congress have adopted it more than anybody else in the Federal Government has. If we can do this in our hiring of people, surely other Government agencies can. I hope this amendment--I think a commonsense amendment--can be considered. I am happy to debate it, but I am finished presenting it. I have it before the Senate and I will let the managers of the bill take the course from that point.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I want to offer a few comments on H.J. Res. 44, which will renew the import ban we first imposed on Burma in 2003. The Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act was our response to the reprehensible attack on the National League for Democracy which occurred on May 30, 2003, and the arrest of many NLD officials, including their leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. I worked with my colleagues, Senator McConnell and Senator Baucus, to develop and pass that legislation. We authorized a ban on imports from Burma, subject to annual renewal by Congress. As Senator Baucus and I noted after the Senate passed that legislation, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act contains a guarantee of ongoing congressional oversight. We felt it was important that the Congress revisit the issue of trade sanctions on Burma each year. That way, Congress can consider whether, in light of any changed circumstances, it is appropriate to renew the ban on Burmese imports for another year. Unfortunately, the situation in Burma has not improved. The human rights record in Burma remains extremely poor. There is a pattern of government policies that suppress liberties. The abuses have been extensive and the trend continues to worsen. There are reportedly over 1,000 political-prisoners in jail. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has spent 11 out the past 18 years under house arrest. In December 2006, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution expressing its grave concern over human rights violations in Burma. In addition, Burma poses serious risks to peace and security in the region. This is not the time to reward the bad actions of the illegitimate Burmese Government. We should send a strong signal to the military junta that their ongoing behavior is unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of continuing the trade sanctions against Burma for another year.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, right now millions of Americans don't know whether they should be paying an estimated tax because Congress hasn't passed AMT relief. In other words, there are many taxpayers who will be facing a big tax bill if we don't pass AMT relief. By law, many of these taxpayers should be paying estimated tax right now based on the fact that as the law is today, they are subject to the AMT. In order to these taxpayers, I am introducing the AMT Penalty Protection Act of 2007. Under this legislation, in computing tax for purpose of the penalties in the tax code dealing with estimated tax, a taxpayer would be permitted to disregard the alternative minimum tax if the individual was not liable for the alternative minimum tax for the preceding tax year. So if you didn't have to pay AMT last year we aren't going to penalize you if you don't file estimated taxes for AMT this year. Just because Congress can't do its job, doesn't mean the taxpayer should be punished. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, right now millions of Americans don't know whether they should be paying an estimated tax because Congress hasn't passed AMT relief. In other words, there are many taxpayers who will be facing a big tax bill if we don't pass AMT relief. By law, many of these taxpayers should be paying estimated tax right now based on the fact that as the law is today, they are subject to the AMT. In order to these taxpayers, I am introducing the AMT Penalty Protection Act of 2007. Under this legislation, in computing tax for purpose of the penalties in the tax code dealing with estimated tax, a taxpayer would be permitted to disregard the alternative minimum tax if the individual was not liable for the alternative minimum tax for the preceding tax year. So if you didn't have to pay AMT last year we aren't going to penalize you if you don't file estimated taxes for AMT this year. Just because Congress can't do its job, doesn't mean the taxpayer should be punished. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, earlier today in the Capitol Rotunda we honored Dr. Norman Borlaug with the Congressional Gold Medal. This is the highest expression of national appreciation. At least two-thirds of Federal lawmakers must sign on to support a nominee before his or her nomination is allowed to advance through Committees in the House and Senate. Previous recipients include distinguished public servants, military heroes, humanitarians, entertainers, musicians, authors, athletes, religious leaders and pioneers in the fields of medicine, science, and aeronautics including our Nation's first President, George Washington. Many of you know that I farm in Iowa with my son Robin. Those of us farming take satisfaction in feeding people through our labors. Through his labors, Dr. Borlaug has been able to feed many more people that Robin and I will ever be able to, even if we worked day and night. He has spared more people from the sharp hunger pains that strike an empty stomach than anyone of us could ever dream of doing. He has saved more lives than any other person in history. An extraordinary man, with a brilliant vision, and the common sense to turn his dreams into a reality--that's Norm Borlaug. I am grateful, but not surprised, that it didn't take long for Congress to advance the legislation giving Dr. Borlaug this award. A few years ago, I spoke with Dr. Borlaug just outside the Senate Chamber. It was overwhelming just how many Senators came off the Senate floor to shake hands with him. I was glad to be able to claim Dr. Borlaug as a native Iowan who has become a true citizen of the world--from a boyhood on a farm in northeast Iowa--a one-room schoolhouse--to a PhD in plant pathology, to decades in the poorest areas of rural Mexico, and a life of scientific breakthroughs to ease malnutrition and famine all over the world. His work in biotechnology has vastly improved food security for countries including India, Pakistan, and Mexico. This humanitarian hero has been instrumental in seeking social justice and promoting peace around the world. Far from resting on his laurels, Dr. Borlaug continues to inspire future generations of scientists and farmers to innovate and lift those mired in poverty. As a fellow Iowan said, ``If you never stick your neck out, you'll never get your head above the crowd.'' Dr. Borlaug stuck his neck out and became a hero and a legend. He deserves every bit of recognition and gratitude we can find to offer him.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise to discuss an amendment I can't offer right now because of the parliamentary situation, but I would like to discuss the amendment with my colleagues so they know it is coming and what it does. My amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill is meant to strengthen our efforts to verify if people in the United States are here legally to do their work. It deals with the Department of Defense because when it comes to the Department itself and to contractors who do Defense Department work, we ought to make sure that everybody who is working here has been here legally. That is for two reasons: One, because that is what the law says. You should not be in the country if you don't have the permission of our Government legally to be here. No. 2, one of the things we are concerned about in enforcing of the immigration laws is to make sure that terrorists don't get into the country. We should be particularly concerned that we don't have people with terrorist connections working for our contractors or working for the Government itself. Without a doubt, we have an illegal immigration problem. That was evident from the legitimate hoorah people raised against the bill and against the amnesty provisions of it and the 2 weeks of debate we had this spring on the issue. People are crossing our borders each day to live and work in the United States. Some of these individuals may have innocent motives but some may not. There may be some illegal or undocumented individuals living in the shadows who aim to bypass law enforcement and do our country harm. We don't live in a pre-9/11 world anymore, so we must do all we can to protect our country and our assets. My amendment would do two things. First, it would require all Federal Government agencies and departments to use what we call the basic pilot program, also known as the Electronic Employment Verification System. This would be for all departments of Government. I will soon demonstrate that a lot of departments are already doing it. But we ought to, particularly in a bill such as this, make sure the Department of Defense is using it in every respect. The second part of the amendment would require all Department of Defense contractors to use the basic pilot to check the eligibility of their workers. The reason this is needed and why it is appropriate in the bill before us is, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 makes it unlawful for employers to knowingly--and I emphasize ``knowingly''--hire and employ aliens not eligible to work in this country. It required employers to check the identity and work eligibility documents for all new employees. Today, if the documents provided by an employee reasonably appear on their face to be genuine, then the employer has met its document review obligation, and it has reason to believe it hired somebody who was legally in the country. So they are off the hook. They can't be fined or any other action taken against the employer. But beyond those documents, the employer cannot solicit any additional documents from the worker, or they would face allegations of employment discrimination. The easy availability, as we all know, of counterfeit documents has made a mockery of that law that we passed in 1986 which, quite frankly, I was here and I voted for. We thought it would solve all of our problems. Well, we went from 1 million people being here illegally to 12 million people, so obviously it didn't solve anything. That is because fake documents are produced by the millions and can be obtained cheaply. Thus, our immigration policies benefit unscrupulous employers who do not mind hiring illegal aliens but want to show that they have met the legal requirements, and then the word ``knowingly'' being in the law, if they have reason to believe legally, even if they are here illegally, unless the employer knows absolutely they are not here illegally, then they are off the hook. The problem is, you have a lot of these employers who know that even though the documents are fraudulent, that the person is here illegally, they hire them and never get caught. So we have tried to put this basic pilot program in place to be one step beyond where we were in 1986. Now at the same time, our policies harm employers who don't want to hire illegal aliens but have no choice but to accept those fraudulent documents that they know have a good likelihood of being that way. In response to the illegal hiring of immigrants, Congress created this basic pilot program in 1996. This program allows employers to check the status of their workers by checking one's Social Security number and alien identification number against the Social Security Administration and Homeland Security databases. Since 1996, the system has been updated and improved. It is a Web- based program. Employers can go online quickly and very easily when hiring an individual. It has been voluntary since its inception. The basic pilot program was originally authorized in 1996, reauthorized in 2001, and expanded and extended again in 2003. Originally, the authorization allowed six States to participate. In 2003, the extension allowed employers in all 50 States to voluntarily use the program. The immigration bill before the Senate I have already referred to, last year and this year, would have required all employers to use the basic pilot program over a period of time, meaning phasing it in. Both the administration and Congress were poised to pass legislation mandating participation and argued that this employment verification system using Social Security was crucial to enforcing the laws on the books and getting around this problem of fraudulent documents. Moreover, during the debate on immigration this year, it was argued that the system was a needed tool for employers to check the eligibility of their workers. I had an opportunity to have a meeting way back in January of this year with Secretary Chertoff about requiring all agencies to use the system and extending the requirement to contractors that do business with the Federal Government. The Department of Homeland Security responded by saying that 403 Federal agencies are participating in the basic pilot program. Moreover, the Department claimed it was exploring ways to verify all executive branch new hires, and its goal was to ensure that all new hires in the executive branch are verified through the basic pilot program by the end of fiscal year 2007; in other words, 3 months from now. Currently, all congressional offices are required to use the basic pilot program. My office uses this process of checking everybody who applies to work for me, and if we are going to hire them, check with the basic pilot program--in other words, Social Security--to make sure that everything matches up. Since more than 400 agencies are already using it, including congressional offices, requiring all agencies beyond the 400 to participate would seem to me to not be overly burdensome and something we ought to do if we want to make sure we don't hire people who are here illegally; and, No. 2, that the Federal Government would set an example for other employers; and, lastly, as the effort to control the border has something to do with stopping terrorists from coming to this country, to make sure that we don't have people like that working for the Federal Government. With this goal in mind of Homeland Security to do this for all executive branch hires by the end of this fiscal year, it seems to me to be reasonable to make sure we move to make sure that it is done. My amendment, then, clarifies, as I see it, what is existing law--that all agencies and all departments must use the basic pilot program and verify the status of their workers. My amendment is needed to push their participation in this program. Congress and the administration would then set an example for the rest of the country. My amendment would also require those who do business with the Department of Defense to use the basic pilot program. This gets to the second part of the bill that deals with contractors working for the Federal Government, working for the Defense Department. There have been many examples of people here illegally working at military bases and installations in the past few years. There have been instances where Government contractors are employing people who are here illegally and allowing them to work in sensitive areas. I will share some examples. In April 2005, 86 of 167 employees of a company called Naval Coating Incorporated were found to be hired illegally. This company was a military contractor that painted ships at naval stations San Diego. More than half of this company's workers were people here illegally. Yet our Department of Defense was doing business with this company that had more than half of its people illegally employed because they were here illegally. Last year, hundreds of illegal workers were found working for a Texas company which makes millions of ready-to-eat meals for our troops in Iraq. Last July, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested more than 60 illegal immigrants at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. In January of this year, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency arrested nearly 40 illegal immigrants hired by contractors working at three military bases: Fort Benning, Creech Air Force Base, and Quantico Marine Base. One of the illegal workers was reportedly a member of the dangerous MS-13 gang. While the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency has done its job to find unauthorized workers at secure sites, illegal aliens should not be hired in the first place. One way to get at the problem is to require them to use this basic pilot program up front like every congressional office does, or at least is supposed to do under the law. That is why my amendment is needed, requiring that those who do business with the Federal Government should be held to the same standard as our executive department agencies, of which as I said, 400, according to Secretary Chertoff, are already doing it. So you might say that half of my amendment may not be needed because he wants them all to do it. But I think we are better off if the law says that they do it, and so I included that in the amendment. So we need to do this like other people in Government are doing to make sure it is done because we need to have the Federal Government setting an example requiring those who do business with the Federal Government to be held, then, to the same standard as our executive department agencies. This amendment will provide the tools to all employers who work with the Department of Defense and require Government agencies to lead the Nation in verifying its workers. I know now the parliamentary situation is such that I can't offer this amendment at this point. I want to explain to everybody as I have--and why I come to the floor now--so that before this bill is voted on final passage, I think before the end of this week, we will have a chance to deal with something that I see as very important from the standpoint of making sure that laws are abided by, making sure the Federal Government as an employer is setting a good example, and making sure that we in this country use all the tools necessary to make sure that people who work for anybody using the Social Security system as that tool are here legally and can then be employed. It overcomes, then, the problems we have with fraudulent documents and, lastly, securing our borders. Who wants to work here should be a tool to make sure terrorists are not working for anybody who works for the Government, meaning a government contractor or for a government agency. Particularly, that ought to be of most concern to us that we do not have that type of person working for the Defense Department--because of national security--or contractors who are doing work for the Defense Department, which is central to our national security. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in October 2006, the North Korean regime of Kim Jong Il culminated years of provocative military action by conducting a nuclear test. In the years preceding that test, North Korea expelled international inspectors, restarted nuclear facilities, and reinvigorated its plutonium production program, this, following the pledge by North Korea, under the agreed framework in 1994, to freeze and dismantle its nuclear weapons program in exchange for our assistance. I am glad that following this test in 2006, the international community joined the United States in condemning that test, and the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution requiring North Korea to halt their nuclear tests and dismantle their nuclear weapons program. In February of this year, our State Department negotiators and Bush administration officials heralded a breakthrough agreement with North Korea. On February 13, the six-party negotiators, including the countries of the United States, Russia, South Korea, Japan, China, and North Korea, concluded an agreement to end North Korea's nuclear programs. President Bush stated he was ``pleased with the agreement reached'' by the six-party talks. He acknowledged that under the agreement, North Korea committed to take several specific actions by a 60-day deadline, and President Bush made clear that the cooperation on economic, humanitarian, and energy assistance to North Korea would be provided ``as the North carries out its commitments to disable its nuclear facilities.'' In other words, there was going to be a step-by-step process by which they disabled their nuclear facilities, that they would then get economic, humanitarian, and energy assistance in North Korea. Pursuant to the February 13 deal, North Korea was required to take a series of actions within 60 days. This included a freeze of its nuclear installations at Yongbyon, including shutting down a nuclear reactor and plutonium processing plant. The International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna was to be allowed to monitor the freeze at Yongbyon. To no one's surprise, that 60-day deadline that was negotiated passed with no action by the North Koreans. The Yongbyon facility was not shut down. The International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors were not admitted, reminiscent of the pussyfooting with North Korea that went on during the 1990s. Rather than comply with their commitments under the agreement--then we know what North Korea did, something that was not even negotiated-- North Korea proceeded to demand the release of assets frozen at the Macau-based Banco Delta Asia. The approximately $25 million was frozen by the United States Treasury Department in 2005 once it was discovered that these funds came from a range of fraudulent and illegal activities by the North Koreans; simply stated, counterfeiting of U.S. currency and money laundering. So what was our response to the North Korean demand? Did we refuse to negotiate the BDA funds until North Korea demonstrated their commitment to follow through on their obligations? I am sorry to say the answer is no. We allowed them to pussyfoot around, as they have done so often. Our team of negotiators began working on a way to yield to Kim Jong Il's demands, once again accepting their pussyfooting. Keep in mind, under the terms of the February 13 agreement, North Korea had the unambiguous responsibility to take the first step, which North Korea did not do. In addition, the BDA frozen funds were not stated in or a part of that February 13 agreement. So how do we get to the point of responding to their pussyfooting that they demand something that is not in an agreement that was already agreed to? What good are agreements? Not only had the North Koreans not followed through on their commitment by the 60-day deadline, they were now reopening the agreement by demanding the release of these frozen funds. So rather than force North Korea to fulfill its commitments, our negotiators were looking for ways to respond to their pussyfooting, their unwillingness to act, and then work to get those frozen funds unfrozen. Here again Uncle Sam becomes Uncle Sucker for some tinhorn dictator. And we wonder why we are not respected around the world. In June, after weeks of back and forth between the State Department and Pyongyang, the funds were unfrozen and our own Federal Reserve System was called in to transfer the funds. How illicit these funds were in the first place is the fact that they went to banks all over the world to try to transfer them. They even went to Russia, and Russia would not touch it. But once again Uncle Sam is Uncle Sucker and our Federal Reserve System was willing to pass on that tainted money. Before North Korea showed even an inkling of followthrough on their obligations, we conceded on an issue that wasn't even a part of the agreement that they were supposed to start dismantling their nuclear program. So it begs the question of whether the BDA funds were part of a side deal that our State Department negotiators had chosen to agree to but not include in that formal agreement. In addition, in pushing the BDA issue as a precondition for implementing the initial phase of the six-party agreement, Kim Jong Il had succeeded in rendering the timelines of the agreement useless. In other words, what was supposed to happen in 60 days after the February 13 agreement did not happen in 60 days, and more pussyfooting by Kim Jong Il, as we saw in the 1990s and we are seeing again now. Do we ever learn a lesson? In addition to pushing the BDA issue as a precondition of implementing the initial phase of the agreement, he had in fact pulled one over on the United States. These deadlines, starting February 13, were touted by the six-party negotiators as evidence that North Korea would finally comply with the demands to give up its nuclear program and that they would be held accountable to strict deadlines. Neither of these things happened, and people in North Korea are laughing at Uncle Sucker again. In recent days and weeks, North Korea has begun to signal that they will take concrete steps to shut down and seal the Yongbyon facility and accede to verification and monitoring procedures of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill recently visited North Korea and described his positive discussions with the North Koreans and their intentions to fulfill their obligations. I wonder if he bothered to discuss with them why they didn't keep their word. Is their word worth anything? I mean, after all, you have an agreement. Can you trust people who sign a name to a document? It is difficult to understand the positive reaction to the signals now being sent by North Korea 3 months after they were required. In other words, in 60 days things would start to happen. Nothing happened until 3 months after the 60 days. Nonetheless, the International Atomic Energy Agency has, in recent days, determined the scope of its inspection regime and is expected to be back in North Korea within weeks. But once again, there is no target date for shutting down the Yongbyon facility. It appears that all we are getting from North Korea's leadership is the same old footdragging--pussyfooting around. And while the North Koreans have said they intend to shut down and seal the Yongbyon facility in the near future, do you know what they are doing now? They are putting more demands on us ahead of time. They are now tying those actions to the delivery of heavy oil. Now, this bears repeating, because, here again, we have more pussyfooting. Before shutting and sealing the nuclear facility at Yongbyon, North Korea is demanding the delivery of heavy oil, and even other assistance, without any significant action on their part. Mr. President, to use a quote from baseball's great Yogi Berra, it's deja vu all over again. My great concern is that North Korea is in the process of exploiting, time and again, our willingness to concede to their demands for assistance, regardless of whether they ever actually comply with their commitments of the February agreement in the first place. In other words, if they can sucker us again, they want to sucker us for all they can get out of us. I understand the angst of North Korea with allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors in and the freezing of the Yongbyon facility, but these steps are rather small compared to the future requirements. If Kim Jong Il ever complies with the first phase of this agreement, the next phase will require them to make a complete declaration of all nuclear programs, including their uranium enrichment activities. It also requires the complete disablement of all nuclear facilities. Keep in mind, no timetables, no deadlines have been agreed to for the implementation of this phase. It is during those future steps, when the real heavy lifting will be required, that we will see the true nature of Kim Jong Il. I haven't seen any change, and I don't expect a lot of change, but I expect the United States to just continue to be suckered and suckered and suckered. And if Kim Jong Il has no intention of giving us his nuclear weapons program, which many believe, it will be crystal clear at that point when real commitments come due. I am afraid we will likely see more of the same patient back and forth, so-called confidence building--those are words our people use-- that our negotiators seem so compelled to pursue. It seems that nothing has been learned during the process with North Korea. Have the diplomats at Foggy Bottom not learned anything from the mistakes made by this administration now, by the Clinton administration previously? Have we learned nothing from Kim Jong Il's perpetual tactics of agreeing to terms, only to demand then further concessions, as though written agreements mean nothing? We have been down this road before. When are we going to recognize we are being made a sucker, much the same way President Clinton was played along with? When will we say to Pyongyang that enough is enough? When will this Bush administration stand its ground? I support the international effort towards a diplomatic solution on this matter, but I also think it is imperative we learn from past mistakes. I was deeply skeptical of North Korea's willingness to follow through on the 1994 Agreed Framework, and I am deeply skeptical they will follow through on the February 13 agreement. If Pyongyang continues to demand assistance without complying with the terms of the February 13 agreement, I hope the President--the present chief executive, President Bush--will quickly realize the deja vu tactics of Kim Jong Il and put an end to the policies of concessions without compliance. If not, President Bush will have done nothing more to address North Korea's nuclear problems than President Clinton. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I will speak roughly, if any Members are interested, 15 minutes or so.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, is there a preestablished time limit?

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today I would like to take a moment to recognize a group of Iowans who distinguished themselves in their service on behalf of the security of the United States. Troop C, 1-113 Cavalry, of the Iowa Army National Guard, brought honor to itself and the State of Iowa while serving in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Troop C entered the Iraq theater of operations on October 30, 2005, and completed its mission on October 30, 2006. Troop C, 1-113 Cavalry was based at Camp Ashraf in the Diyala Province of Iraq. Diyala is one of the most contested provinces in Iraq, and the mission of Troop C, 1-113 Cavalry was to provide perimeter defense at Camp Ashraf, reconnaissance and security patrols, improvised explosive device clearance missions, and convoy escorts. Troop C missions were conducted in such contested cities as Baghdad, Baqubah, and Khalis, as well as anywhere else required. Dangerous does not quite capture the situations that Troop C faced on a daily basis. During this tour of duty, Troop C, 1-113 Cavalry conducted more than 3,000 missions, drove in excess of 150,000 miles on treacherous Iraqi roads, sustained over 50 improvised explosive devices strikes, discovered more than 25 emplaced improvised explosive devices and provided security while these devices were destroyed; and on a routine basis conducted security missions to Ashraf's West Water Pump Station. Troop C put themselves in harm's way to ensure continual water supply to Ashraf and the surrounding villages. For its actions while performing these missions, Troop C has earned to date eleven Purple Hearts and nearly one-hundred combat action badges. Battlefield success came at a price. SGT Dan L. Sesker made the ultimate sacrifice, giving his life while conducting a convoy operation in Baghdad. On May 29, 2006, members of Troop C arrived on scene immediately after 4th Infantry Division Soldiers and a Columbia Broadcasting System news crew were attacked while conducting Memorial Day interviews. The soldiers of Troop C heroically took up the security mission and provided first aid to the wounded Soldiers and news crew. The treatment provided to the correspondent, Kimberly Dozier, saved her life. Troop C, 1-113 Cavalry deserves the highest praise of this body and the entire Nation. The courage, selfless sacrifice, and dedication to their mission displayed by Troop C exemplifies what is best in our brave soldiers and I am very proud to call them fellow Iowans. It is to the valor of those in Troop C and others like them past and present that we Americans owe our freedom and security today.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senator Craig Thomas was a very good friend. He served in the Senate with great honor and respect for the institution. I got to know Senator Thomas best through the work of the Finance Committee. Senator Thomas was an active and dedicated participant in the business of the committee from tax policy, to health care, Social Security and international trade. When I was chairman of the committee, I could always count on his diligent, steadfast and valuable involvement in the issues before us. I appreciated greatly his commitment to conservative principles and the responsibilities of governing. In particular, as chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, Senator Thomas was a strong voice for opening new markets and opportunities for U.S. exports. He went above and beyond and engaged himself fully in efforts to achieve ambitious outcomes from trade negotiations. He demonstrated his commitment time and again with his own personal time and his personal resolve. Senator Thomas was a true representative for his Wyoming constituents. He worked hard and sincerely for their good and for the good of our Nation every day. He will be missed so very much. Barbara and I extend our sincere and deep sympathies to his family and his staff.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I don't care if I speak. Let's forget all this. I can speak some other time. I would like to say why I ought to have debate on my amendment. If I don't talk about the substance of the amendment, can I talk about why I ought to be able to bring up the amendment?

Mr. GRASSLEY. We don't.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the only response I can give to the Senator from Massachusetts is that we have worked very hard in the Finance Committee to make sure that private income tax information and private Social Security information is protected. It seems to me that is basic to a system of taxation that is voluntary compliance. We have made some compromises of that, some use of that under very strict guidelines in the past. We presented it to the Senator's committee on this bill the same as we have in the past. The 5-year sunset is one example. Certain penalties for misuse of the information is another one. It seems to me that is very basic if we are going to have confidence in our tax system and protect the privacy of the individual taxpayer.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to speak generally about the legislation before us. There is some concern that I have expressed--not so much on the floor but in other public comments I made--that I am one of about 22 or 23 Members of the Senate who were here in 1986 when we passed amnesty, as is in this bill as well. I was one of those Senators who voted for amnesty at that particular time. At that particular time, we had maybe 1 million to 3 million people cross the border illegally and who were here illegally. We all thought--and there have been plenty of references to statements made in the Congressional Record 20 years ago--that if we were to adopt amnesty, it would settle this problem once and for all, do it once and for all. You know, I believed that. But do you know what I found out maybe 5 or 10 years ago? When you reward illegality, you get more of it. Now the guesstimate is that we have 12 million people here illegally. They are not illegal people, but they came here illegally. I think I have an obligation to consider the votes I made before and, if they are wrong, not make that mistake again. You know, it is a little like the chaos you would have if you didn't respect and enforce red lights and stop signs. You would have chaos at intersections and accidents. Wherever you don't enforce the rule of law, those are the things that happen. You need social cohesion, and social cohesion comes from respect for the rule of law in our country. So it seems to me that, as we go down this road, what we ought to do is concentrate on legal immigration, the reforms we are bringing to the H-1B program, the reforms we are bringing in the way of a temporary worker program. People would rather come here legally rather than illegally, I believe. I know it is not very satisfying to people to hear that we have 12 million people in the underground. The point is that if people could come here legally to work, they would soon, one by one, by attrition, replace people who are here illegally, I believe. I am not one who wants to make that mistake again. That is why I am weighing very heavily the issue of what we do with amnesty or what other people who don't like the word ``amnesty'' would say is earned citizenship, guest worker program, those sorts of things that are covering up really what we are doing. I say if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it is a duck. If it looks like amnesty, it is amnesty. That is the bottom line. We ought to learn the lesson that in 1986 it didn't work. I don't think it will work now. I am 73 years old, so obviously I am not going to be here 20 years from now when we have another immigration bill. But I should not make that problem so that a successor of mine has to deal with 25 million people being here illegally as opposed to the 12 million now or the 1 to 3 million before. I yield the floor and whatever time I didn't use I will retain or whatever is done with the surplus.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I said you would have to have debate in order to keep your promise or it doesn't mean anything.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.