Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today Senator Baucus and I are pleased to introduce the Tax Technical Corrections Act of 2006. Technical Corrections measures are routine for major tax acts, and are necessary to ensure that the provisions of the acts are working consistently with Congressional intent, or to provide clerical corrections. Because these measures carry out Congressional intent, no revenue gain or loss is scored from them. Technical corrections are derived from a deliberative and consultative process among the Congressional and Administration tax staffs. That means the Republican and Democratic staffs of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees are involved, as is the staff of the Treasury Department. All of this work is performed with the participation and guidance of the non-partisan staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. A technical enters the list only if all staffs agree it is appropriate. By filing this bill, we hope interested parties and practitioners will comment and provide direction on further edits, additions, or deletions. These comments should be submitted in a timely manner, by the end of October. It is our hope that we may move this package of technicals in November if possible. We ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill print in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity at the end of a Congress to express may gratitude and best wishes to Ken Cunningham, a long-time friend and staffer who has been like family to my wife Barbara and me for more than 25 years and left my staff a few months ago. He served me in a number of positions during those years, including chief of staff general counsel, legislative director, and legislative assistant--sometimes juggling multiple positions at once. I used to joke with him about all the titles that he had accumulated. But now faced with growing family obligations, he has left my staff to set up his own government relations firm. After 2 years working for former Congressman Tom Tauke, Ken joined my new Senate staff in 1981 to handle several legislative and regulatory areas initially focusing on commerce, telecommunications, transportation, and agriculture. In fact, my very first Senate legislative victories came with Ken's help on the 1981 farm bill. Ken and his wife Sherry lived near Barbara and me, so he and I would drive to and from work together. We got to know each other well during those commutes and quickly became good friends. It was clear that my new staffer possessed sound judgment, integrity, a strong work ethic, and a passion for serving our constituents. He worked many years in the Senate before it became popular around here to talk about the need for a ``family friendly'' schedule. And yet Ken found the time and energy to earn his law degree at the Georgetown Law Center. But I knew that I could always count on him to make the necessary sacrifices to get the job done here in the Senate no matter how long the hours. He probably set an office record in the early eighties during the crunch time of an ending Congress. As he juggled several pending legislative issues, he took only 7 hours of sleep for the entire week. As some know, the devastation of the farm crisis of the middle eighties so discouraged me that I almost did not run for reelection. But Ken, like me, grew up farming. He, too, had friends back home and was likewise crushed by their suffering. He worked tirelessly to help me fight for every bit of relief and assistance possible to help rural Americans through that tragic time. As partial testament to his effectiveness, when I did decide to run again, and we did some polling, my highest approval ratings came from farmers and their families. And while the farm crisis led to the defeat of many Midwest legislators, I was reelected by a wide margin. My good friend, former Senate majority leader, Bob Dole, has called Ken Cunningham the smartest staff man on Capitol Hill, and said that I am lucky to have him. Given the number of staffers Senator Dole has known over the decades, that is indeed a remarkable compliment. But Ken has proven time and again that he deserves that reputation. Ken has always been quick to grasp the complex. He possesses incredible discernment and political instincts. He has an intense competitive spirit. And he is tenacious--almost as tenacious as me. He probably learned that from me. Given these positive traits, combined with his understanding of Senate legislative rules and procedure, Ken can be either a great ally, or a most formidable opponent. Let me give you an example. Ken's expertise and qualities proved crucial in reversing a devastating tax legislation defeat handed to us by the House of Representatives, led by then-Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer, during consideration of the 1997 reconciliation bill. Chairman Archer and big oil had long despised tax incentives for ethanol, one of America's few energy independence success stories, and the source of billions of dollars of income and thousands of jobs for rural Americans and farmers. By using reconciliation to kill these tax incentives and thus creating tax savings that protected other popular programs, Chairman Archer had devised and executed a plan to kill these tax incentives that were procedurally and politically virtually impossible to stop. He rammed it through his committee and then rammed it through the full House of Representatives. Pro-ethanol allies in both the House and the Senate faced what seemed like one of those ``deer-in-the-headlights'' moments. As the Senate Finance Committee prepared to take up the reconciliation package, farm and renewable fuels groups looked to me to lead the fight. But cracking reconciliation's procedural nut at this point was a daunting challenge at best. Ken, however, formulated a legislative response that overcame these obstacles. One Finance Committee tax counsel wryly characterized it as ``clever.'' The amendment was designed not only to stop Chairman Archer's handiwork, but also to extend the ethanol tax provisions by several years. This was a bold move for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the fact that it drew opposition from both the Finance Committee's chairman and ranking Democrat. The political obstacles were even more challenging than the legislative and procedural. Many Democrats were outright giddy with the prospects of taking back control of Congress by blaming Republicans for the loss of the ethanol program and the resulting harm to rural America. In recognition of this temptation, Ken recommended a particular Democratic cosponsor who, though not recognized as the most experienced in these battles, we felt would fight hard against political gamesmanship. He also devised a plan that did not depend upon the Clinton administration's help to ensure success. I will never forget how quickly the loud chortling of the big oil lobbyists fell silent as they were stunned the night my amendment passed the Senate Finance Committee by a vote of 16 to 4. And to the amazement of many, we fought to a draw during the 1997 reconciliation battle. Both Chairman Archer's and my provisions were dropped in conference. We then braced for Chairman Archer's next attack that came with the 1998 highway bill. This time, however, Speaker Gingrich quietly assured me that if we could get my tax amendment passed once again in the Senate, he would find a way to help me in conference. As the time came close for the House/Senate conference, the Speaker had not yet said what he would do to help. Ken explored a number of ideas. It was common practice for House committee chairmen to designate members of their party and committee to attend conferences. But researching House rules, and seeking confirmation from the House Parliamentarian, Ken determined that the actual power of appointment resides with the Speaker. We approached the Speaker to suggest that he consider exercising this power. And indeed, that is ultimately what the Speaker did: he appointed pro-ethanol House conferees, and my legislation extending the ethanol tax incentive prevailed, while the Ways and Means chairman's language to kill the program was dropped. When I became the new chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Mark Prater, the committee's chief tax counsel, told me that this was by far the biggest victory he had witnessed of me. It was unheard of and astounding for a mid-level member of the Finance Committee to defeat, as I did, a Ways and Means chairman on one of his top priorities. Mr. President, even House Speaker Gingrich was amazed as the dust settled and we emerged victorious. Addressing a group of my constituents, the Speaker characterized legislate battle as, and I quote, ``the substance about which great novels are written.'' I will be first to acknowledge and express gratitude for all the help that many, many people provided in this fight, but I am convinced that we would have lost and there would be no ethanol program today had Ken Cunningham not come up with the right analyses and solutions at each and every critical juncture. Over the years, Ken helped me at one time or another in just about every area of legislation and committee assignment, but he also contributed greatly to my office as a manager--first as legislative director and then as chief of staff. He is very good with people--tactful and empathetic. He is firm, but always fair and even-handed. He has a way of bringing calm and resolution to tensions and conflict among staff. He is a good problem solver, teacher, and coach. It is said that actions speak louder than words. And although I am not at a loss for words of praise for Ken, I think one of my last acts before he left speaks volumes about my confidence in Ken's judgment, loyalty, friendship. I asked him to find and hire his own replacement--someone who was just as good with the same experience. I knew he would not let me down, and I think he did a pretty good job on that last assignment. Ken has a wonderful wife and four growing boys. Barbara and I extend our blessings and best wishes for Ken and his family. And we have absolute confidence that he will be successful in his new business. We miss seeing him at the office every day but know we will always be close friends. So, Ken, to a valued public servant and a trusted friend, Barbara and I say thank you for your long-standing service to Iowa and the U.S. Senate.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Fiscal Accountability, Integrity and Responsibility in SCHIP'' or FAIR-SCHIP Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Johnny Isakson, R-GA, Senator Saxby Chambless, R-GA, Senator Richard Burr, R- NC and Senator Lisa Murkowski, R-AK. This legislation is a targeted one year approach to addressing a looming problem in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). According to estimates prepared by the Congressional Research Service, as many as 17 States will run out of SCHIP funds in 2007. Several States will run shortfalls in the hundreds of millions of dollars. These shortfalls will result in States having to limit the coverage available to low-income children. These shortfalls are deep and they will get deeper. One of my principal objectives in the 110th Congress will be to reauthorize the SCHIP program. There are a number of compelling issues associated with the SCHIP program that will require thoughtful review and discussion by Members of Congress. Reauthorization will not be easy. Legislating on an issue as complex and sensitive as children's health care is never easy. However, if the Congress does not act to address some of these policies as well as the SCHIP formula, one thing is certain: The current State entitlement is not sufficient, in the long term, to cover the costs of maintaining the current level of coverage provided by the States. I am aware of legislation introduced in the Senate and the House that would simply appropriate additional funds to cover the SCHIP shortfalls. This is not a viable option. If the Congress perpetuates a scenario where the SCHIP funding formula is not improved and other programmatic changes are not enacted, yet State SCHIP shortfalls covered year after year, there will be no practical difference between SCHIP, which is a capped allotment, and Medicaid, which is an open ended entitlement. I do not believe there is majority support for turning the SCHIP program into an entitlement program. I am concerned what going down a path that essentially does treat SCHIP as a de facto entitlement program means for the long standing viability of SCHIP. Therefore, the approach envisioned in FAIR-SCHIP takes a balanced, moderate approach to addressing this issue. FAIR-SCHIP recognizes that additional resources will be needed if States are to be able to continue to provide the current level of coverage for children. FAIR-SCHIP also recognizes that funding under the SCHIP programs can be more equitably distributed. FAIR-SCHIP takes a moderate, balanced approach by appropriating approximately half of the estimated Fiscal Year 07 shortfall. FAIR-SCHIP also includes a modest redistribution scenario that would occur in the second half of the fiscal year and only affect the 05 allotments of States which have a 200 percent surplus of SCHIP funds, relative to their projected 07 spending. FAIR-SCHIP is a fiscally sound, responsible approach to the issue of SCHIP shortfalls that will position the Congress to achieve important programmatic improvements in the 110th Congress, when the SCHIP program will need to be reauthorized. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. I hope my colleagues will support the approach envisioned by FAIR- SCHIP.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we hear on a daily basis about the war we are currently engaged in, the war on terror, but I don't think most of us stop to think about what that actually means. As citizens of the greatest country in the world, we have become so accustomed to all the rights afforded us by our Constitution that we now take them for granted. We are incredibly fortunate to live in a nation where our freedom and safety is our Government's first priority. We aren't living in the world I grew up in. Our Nation was rocked to its core 5 years ago when we were attacked on our own soil. Thousands of innocent Americans were murdered simply because they lived in the one country that, above all others, embodies freedom and democracy. The mastermind behind those attacks was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is now in custody and soon will be brought to justice. In the aftermath of these attacks, Congress authorized our President to ``use all necessary force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.'' President Bush used this authorization, combined with his constitutional powers to make these sorts of judgments during times of war, to try enemy combatants in military commissions. Earlier this month, we observed the 5-year anniversary of the horrific attacks on America. I cannot imagine the reaction that would have come if, 5 years ago, Members of Congress had stood on this floor and suggested that we wouldn't do all we could to prevent another attack on our country. Five years ago, with the images of the collapsing Twin Towers and the burning Pentagon and the smoldering Pennsylvania field seared into our memories, we stood united in the proposition that we intended to protect Americans first. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which the Supreme Court decided earlier this year, the Court ruled that the administration's use of military commissions to try unlawful enemy combatants violated international law. This decision forced our interrogators, key in defending America from terrorist attack, to curtail their investigations. Without a clarification of the vague requirements, these interrogators might be subject to prosecution for war crimes. It also brought to an end the prosecution of unlawful enemy combatants through the military commissions. It is key to point out that military commissions have been used throughout American history to bring enemy combatants to justice since before the United States was even officially formed. George Washington used them during the American Revolution, and since our Constitution was ratified, Presidents have used military commissions to try those who seek to harm Americans during every major conflict. Some of our most popular Presidents from history have taken this route, including Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Whenever the leaders of this great Nation have seen threats posed by those who refuse to abide by the rules of war, they have taken the necessary steps to protect us. Our President has come to us and asked for help in trying these terrorists whose sole goal is to kill those who love freedom. He has asked for our help in ensuring that those investigating potential terrorist plots against our Nation and our citizens are secure from arbitrary prosecution for undefined war crimes. These people are part of our first line of defense in securing the safety of our country--we owe it to them to protect them. Because of the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan, the only way these terrorists will be brought to justice and our interrogators will be protected for doing their jobs is for Congress to write a new law codifying procedures for military commissions and clarifying our obligations under the Geneva Conventions. I firmly believe that enemy combatants in our custody enjoyed ample due process in the military commissions established by the administration, which were brought to a halt by the Supreme Court. The compromise that we are considering here today gives more rights to terrorists who were caught trying to harm America and our allies than our own servicemembers would receive elsewhere, more than is required by the Geneva Conventions--yet some are still demanding more. Mr. President, it is essential that we protect human dignity at every opportunity, but we have gone well beyond that with this legislation. The legislation before us responds to the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan and seeks to protect national security while ensuring that the terrorists who seek to destroy America are properly dealt with. This bill affords these unlawful enemy combatants rights that they themselves would never consider granting American soldiers. It is beyond reasonable, beyond fair, and beyond time for Congress to act. We must pass this bill and reinstate the programs that, I believe, have been a crucial part of our Nation's security over the last 5 years.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to tell the Senator from Vermont that I am going to miss him in the Senate and still consider him a friend. I hope to have a long relationship with him, even in his retirement. I am that Senator that Jim Jeffords, the Senator from Vermont, referred to as the one remaining Republican of the class of 1974. There were 17 of us. I think there were about 70 Democrats. It was a bad year for Republicans. You couldn't even put the word Republican on your literature. It was the year Nixon resigned. There were only 140 of us in the House of Representatives at that time. I don't know whether Senator Jeffords felt this way, but I felt this way, that it was probably the end of the Republican Party. Well, I was wrong. He and I have been reelected to serve together, to serve our respective constituents. I remember Senator Jeffords as an outstanding member of the Agriculture Committee in the House of Representatives the 6 years I served on that committee. Then there was a period of time where I was a Member of the Senate and he still stayed in the House of Representatives. Our friendship still held. But working together--you know how it is in Congress, the House and Senate; there is a Grand Canyon between us sometimes, and we don't communicate as much as we ought to. Consequently, it was like getting reacquainted with Senator Jeffords again when he came to the Senate. I was glad then and I am very glad now that he continued his service. I think he is an outstanding example of probably what is an unacknowledged principle of political science--at least it is a feeling I have about the people of our country--that if you serve honorably where you are at a certain time and do the best job possible, you are going to have opportunities to enhance your position within public service. So as a State senator, then as an attorney general, then as a Congressman, and then as a Senator for the people of Vermont, I believe he got to be a Senator because people in Vermont recognized him, as a State senator, as a Congressman, and as an attorney general, as a person who was not there because of political ambition, wanting to rise to the top, but a person, in each stage of his public service life, who did what that job required and did it well. People recognized that and in the end of the process, he came to the Senate. In every relationship I have had with Senator Jeffords, whether he was Republican or an Independent, it has always been one that has been friendly and honorable and honest, and, most importantly, to describe him as a humanitarian as he approached public policy. It seemed to me that as a Member of the Senate, whether as an Independent or as a Republican, Senator Jeffords brought forth what it takes to get things done in the Senate, and that is moderation. It doesn't matter whether it is a bill that is representing the philosophy of the extreme left or a bill that represents the philosophy of the extreme right, nothing such as that is going to get through the Senate. Eventually you have to have people come together seeking a middle ground, a bipartisan approach to get things done. It seems to me, in every respect, that is what Senator Jeffords did--he sought moderation because that is how you get solutions and that is the only way the Senate produces. I compliment him on his dedicated public service. I congratulate him on his long service to the people of the United States and the people of Vermont. I will miss working with him. I will miss him, but I hope we have opportunities to have great relationships for the rest of our lives.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of telling my colleagues that I am going to miss my colleague.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the Senate amendment to S. 3525, which represents the bipartisan and bicameral agreement on the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006. I was pleased to have introduced the Senate amendment with my friend and partner on the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Max Baucus. Senator Baucus and I were joined by Senator Orrin G. Hatch, and Senator John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and Senator Olympia J. Snowe. All of these members have a long history of support for important programs to improve the well-being of children. This important legislation reauthorizes the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program which provides services to families for family support, family preservation, time-limited reunification of families, and for adoption and post-adoption services. These are critical funding streams, and the reauthorization of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program ensures that families can rely on these preventative and supportive services. The legislation also aligns the Child Welfare Services Act with the prevention activities of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program by providing incentives to States to invest in prevention services while allowing States to continue current State spending on existing State priorities. S. 3525 provides support for increased caseworker visits as well as adopts a version of President Bush's proposal to provide a voucher for mentoring services for children of prisoners. Additionally, the legislation increases access for funding for Indian tribes, which was a key priority of both Senator Baucus and Senator Kent Conrad. The legislation that will soon be signed by the President also includes grants for regional partnerships to address the growing problem of methamphetamine and other substance abuse and addictions that have had a substantial impact on child welfare systems and services. Funding for these competitive grants was a key priority of mine, and I am pleased that the compromise we were able to work out with the House maintains the support for grants to improve the outcomes for children affected by methamphetamine abuse and addiction. Mr. President, the Senate Finance Committee did a great deal of work on issues relating to child welfare. We held the first full committee hearing in 10 years on child welfare, and we held an additional hearing on the effects of the methamphetamine epidemic on the child welfare system. We worked on a bipartisan basis to mark up and pass the Improving Outcomes for Children Affected by Meth Act of 2005. Key provisions of that bill are features in the legislation which will soon be signed into law. But there is more that can be done to strengthen and improve child welfare services. I intend to continue to work on a bipartisan basis to develop and enact reforms to ensure that all children have access to loving, permanent homes. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the staff who worked tirelessly to get this bill done. Members of Congress in both the House and the Senate are very well served by our staffs. These men and women care a great deal about these programs, and we are indebted to them for their insights and analysis. I am grateful to the talented staff from the office of Senator Baucus, specifically, Diedra Henry-Spires, Doug Steiger, and Michelle Easton. Additionally, I am grateful to Senator Rockefeller's extremely knowledgeable aid Barbara Pryor. I appreciate the work of the staff on the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the House Committee on Ways and Means, Matt Weidinger and Christine Calpin for the majority and Nick Gwyn and Sonja Nesbit for the minority. I also thank the dedicated analyst from the Congressional Research Service, Emilie Stoltzfus who provided staff with invaluable expertise on child welfare programs. Thanks to Christina Hawley Anthony from the Congressional Budget Office as well as legislative counsels Ruth Ernst and James Grossman. Finally, I appreciate the efforts of my own Finance Committee policy lead on this issue, Becky Shipp as well as Mark Hayes, Ted Totman, and Kolan Davis. Mr. President, because a formal conference was not convened on this bill, there is no conference report filed. However, the staff has prepared a section-by-section analysis of the Senate-House agreement for purposes of the legislative history. Mr. President, some will say this has been a ``do nothing congress.'' I couldn't disagree more, and I believe that the children and families served by this legislation would disagree as well. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the section-by-section analysis to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak for a few minutes in morning business. In August, I received a letter from a constituent, Mr. John Dodgen, of Humboldt, IA. Along with the letter, Mr. Dodgen enclosed a copy of an opinion piece he authored regarding the war on terror that was published in the local newspaper. In his opinion piece, Mr. Dodgen rightly asserts that the United States is engaged in a global war on terror with an enemy whose goal is the elimination of the United States. I also strongly agree with his premise that we must take the fight to the terrorists where they operate or we will be forced to confront them on our soil. This is a war that we must win, and we must remain on the offense until the war is won. Mr. Dodgen raises some compelling thoughts in his opinion piece. Rather than try to summarize all of Mr. Dodgen's points and recommendations, I would like to submit for the Record his thoughts on controlling terrorism. I ask unanimous consent that the text of Mr. Dodgen's opinion piece be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Last year, Senator Harkin and I introduced legislation, that passed the Senate by unanimous consent, that would extend the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act for one-year to allow additional time to review the GAO recommendations and develop needed modifications to the law to improve the functioning and operation of the program. Unfortunately, the House refused to take up the bill and the law expired. I conditioned my support of any multi-year extension or revision of the Livestock Mandatory Reporting program on carrying out the GAO study results. Now we are at a crucial point with the legislative session coming to a close. Senator Harkin and I realize that we are facing strong opposition from the packing industry on moving a Senate version that includes the GAO recommendations. I ask for assurances from Chairman Chambliss that he will work with Senator Harkin and me to move our proposed legislative changes forward.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I also call on Chairman Chambliss to help Senator Harkin and me get much-needed answers to what USDA has done to implement the GAO recommendations. There has been a lack of believability regarding the information generated by the Livestock Mandatory Reporting program, many producers across Iowa and many parts of the Nation feel strongly that the information would be more valuable if the program had more credibility through improved transparency.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Murkowski in sponsoring a resolution commemorating the annual Red Ribbon Week celebrated October 23-31. Red Ribbon Week encourages individuals, families, and communities to take a stand against alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drug use. I hope the rest of the Senate will join in supporting this resolution and support this very important campaign. The tradition of Red Ribbon Week, now in its twenty-first year of wearing and displaying red ribbons, started following the assassination of U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency Special Agent Enrique ``Kiki'' Camarena. In an effort to honor his memory and unite in the battle against drug crime and abuse, friends, neighbors, and students from his home town began wearing red ribbons. Shortly thereafter, the National Family Partnership took the celebration nationwide. Since then, the Red Ribbon campaign has reached millions of children, families, and communities across the country, spreading the message about the destructive effects of drugs. In my State of Iowa, this year's theme for Red Ribbon Week is Take a Stand--Be Drug Free. Schools and community groups across the State are organizing a variety of activities including pledges, contests, workshops, rallies, theatrical and musical performances, and other family and educational events all designed to educate our children on the negative effects of drugs and promote a drug-free environment. Research tells us that the longer a child stays drug-free the less likely they will become addicted or even try illegal drugs. This is why it is so important to maintain a coherent anti-drug message that begins early in adolescence and continues throughout the growing years. Such an effort must involve parents, communities, and young people. Red Ribbon Week provides each of us the opportunity to take a stand by helping our children make the right decisions when it comes to drugs. In light of the growing epidemic of methamphetamine abuse throughout the Nation and especially in my State of Iowa, this year's Red Ribbon Week holds greater importance. I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this resolution to demonstrate our commitment to raising awareness about drugs and encourage everyone to make healthy choices.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to use my 10 minutes that has been allocated to me on the Oman Free Trade Agreement.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5684, the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. The United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement will benefit U.S. farmers, workers, and businesses. It will lead to economic growth and enhance the predictability of the rule of law in Oman, a reliable ally of the United States in the Middle East. The United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement will also serve as a model for other free-trade agreements in the Middle East. In this way, the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement will contribute to the formation of a Middle East free trade area, a development that would provide major economic and political benefits for the United States. Let me begin by discussing the economic gains that this agreement will bring to the United States. On the day that the agreement goes into effect, Oman will no longer impose any tariffs on U.S.-produced consumer and industrial products. The agreement will also benefit U.S. farmers as some 87 percent Oman's tariff lines will go to zero for U.S. agricultural products on day one of the agreement. Oman's remaining tariffs on U.S. farm products will be phased out over 10 years. In addition, the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement will result in substantial improvements in market access for U.S. service providers and new protections for U.S. investors. Given the benefits that it will provide to the United States, the agreement has been endorsed by groups as varied as the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Chemistry Council, the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, the National Foreign Trade Council, and the United States-Middle East Free Trade Coalition, an entity consisting of over 110 U.S. companies and associations supporting trade expansion in the Middle East. The United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement will result in new market opportunities for farmers, workers, and businesses throughout the United States, including those in Iowa. For example, the Midamar Corporation--a small business located in Cedar Rapids, IA, that specializes in halal foods--anticipates that the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement will lead to new sales of Iowa- produced foods in Oman. Profit margins in the food sector are very low, and Oman's current average applied tariff of 5 percent on many of Midamar's products cuts into the company's profits. With Oman's tariffs on many of Midamar's products going to zero on day one of the agreement, Midamar will have significantly improved access to the Omani market immediately upon implementation of the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement. At least two other Iowa businesses expect to benefit from the free- trade agreement. The HNI Corporation of Muscatine is the second largest manufacturer of office furniture in North America, and HNI is specifically targeting the fast-growing market of the Middle East. HNI anticipates that the agreement will provide improved opportunities for it to sell its products in Oman. Likewise, Lennox--which manufactures residential heating and cooling products in Marshalltown--predicts that it will gain from the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement. Thus, the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement could have a direct impact on Iowans in Cedar Rapids, Muscatine, and Marshalltown. This agreement will benefit people in other States as well. I am confident that the Oman Free Trade Agreement will ultimately lead to new market access opportunities for American products in yet more Middle Eastern countries. President Bush is advocating the development of a United States-Middle East free trade area by 2013, and the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement is another building block toward the accomplishment of this goal. The United States has already implemented free-trade agreements with four other countries in the Middle East--Bahrain, Israel, Jordan, and Morocco. A completed United States-Middle East free trade area would result in significantly improved market access for U.S. farm, consumer, and industrial products in a region of the world populated by 350 million people that is growing quickly. Such an arrangement would also benefit people throughout the Arab world by providing needed economic reforms. So a United States-Middle East free trade area is in the best interests of the people of the Middle East, and it would advance American interests as well. In addition to providing new economic opportunities for the United States, the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement will contribute to the security of our country. Oman is a consistent ally of the United States in an unstable part of the world. Given that the United States is currently engaged militarily in two countries in the region, now is a particularly appropriate time for us to further cement our close ties with Oman. By improving economic conditions in Oman, I am convinced that the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement will contribute to the stability of that country. Such stability will help solidify Oman's position as a moderate Arab country and a friend of the United States. The United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement is a strong agreement. It will provide economic benefits for the United States. It will also benefit Oman, a consistent ally of the United States. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 5684, the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to pay tribute to 16 outstanding scholars who have recently been announced as 2006 Davidson fellows. The Davidson Institute scholarships promote and reward students under 18 years old who have undertaken invaluable projects and studies for the greater good of our country and the world. These individuals are more than deserving of this great honor. Allow me to introduce each of the scholars and describe a bit about them and their projects. At the age of 12, Drew Petersen, of Oradell, NJ, is the youngest student ever accepted into the Manhattan School of Music Conducting Program. He hopes to become a performing pianist, composer, and conductor. Drew's project is entitled ``Keeping Classical Music Alive.'' He hopes that he can reach audiences through his piano performances and inspire them to become more active and engaged listeners in all areas of their lives. Shivani Sud, a 16-year-old from Durham, NC, discovered a technology to deliver chemotherapeutic molecules to cancerous cells with increased efficiency. Her project is entitled ``HIV-1 Tat and IGK-Chain Secretion Based Protein Transduction: a Novel Strategy for Molecule Delivery.'' Shivani's research can help combat cancer and infectious diseases through more effective chemotherapy treatments. A senior at Jordan High School, Shivani hopes to eventually perform research in the field of medicine as a physician scientist. Heather Engebretson is a 16-year-old from Tuscaloosa, AL, who views music as a method of communication and a tool for social progress. Heather's portfolio, ``Music as a Universal Communication,'' showcases her wide range of prestigiously awarded musical talents. Heather will attend the University of Alabama this fall majoring in vocal performance, in hopes that the combination of this experience and the courses she has taken through the Johns Hopkins distance learning program will help her in someday fulfilling her dream of becoming an opera singer. The discoveries of 17-year-old Michael Viscardi from San Diego, CA, can potentially aid in next-generation aircraft design, aerodynamics, medical imaging, astronomy, heat flow and fluid dynamics. Michael's project, ``On the Solution of the Dirichlet Problem with Rational Holomorphic Boundary Data,'' portrays his solution of the thermal equilibrium of a heated metal plate. Michael will attend Harvard and the New England Conservatory in the fall, majoring in mathematics and violin performance respectively, and I have no doubt that he has the potential to become both a successful mathematics professor and a professional violinist. As a 17-year-old woman from Austin, TX, Stephanie Chen has already established herself as an award-winning musician. Stephanie explores each piece in her piano portfolio, ``A Musical Painting,'' by creating images in her mind then, in her performance, conveying this passion to the audience. Stephanie is entering her senior year at Westwood High School and would like to pursue medical studies in college and play the piano professionally. Kyle Dacuyan is a 16-year-old young man from Sterling, VA, with a passion for writing. Kyle illustrates that he is able to empathize with other viewpoints throughout his portfolio entitled ``What Have You Been, Where Have You Gone.'' Kyle's work examines familial relationships, complexities and oddities, and exhibits his unflinchingly honest look at pride, love, and social class. As he enters his senior year at Potomac Falls High School, Kyle hopes to continue his lifelong passion for writing through his pursuit of college degrees in English and writing. Kyle also hopes to someday teach at the college level. Seventeen-year-old Varun Kumar, of Bellaire, TX, is determined to improve diagnostics in the field of medicine through more effective magnetic resonance imaging, MRI. The implications of Varun's research, found in his portfolio entitled ``Novel Properties in Europium DOTA-- tetramide Complex for use in MRI Contrast Agent,'' could provide a more comprehensive and less invasive form of diagnosis in almost every field of medicine. Varun is a recent graduate of Bellaire High School and will be attending Rice University in the fall. He plans to major in biochemistry and pursue a career in medicine or medical research, and I wish him the very best of luck. Sheela Krishnan is a 17-year-old young woman from Suffren, NY, who analyzed Paenicbacillus larvae, the bacterium that causes American foulbrood disease, AFB, a fatal disease that attacks honeybee larvae. Sheela created a safe, non-invasive and inexpensive preventative measure to protect honeybees in vivo from AFB. Sheela portrays her work in her portfolio entitled ``Isolation and Characterization of a Potential Probiotic Cocktail for the Control of American Foulbrood in Domestic Honeybees.'' Sheela is a recent high school graduate and will be attending Brown University as a member of the 8-year liberal medical education program. She hopes to major in both anthropology and biology and then go on to become a doctor. The research of 17-year-old Adam Solomon, of Bellmore, NY, can help unlock clues about stellar evolution and formation, the history of our galaxy, and the formation of planetary systems. Displayed in his portfolio entitled ``The Effects of Age on Brown Dwarf Spectral Features in the Near-Infrared'' is Adam's creation of an analytical tool for estimating a brown dwarf's age and mass. Adam will attend Yale University where he plans to major in astronomy and physics and hopes to move on to the University of Cambridge for a master's then on to Caltech or Harvard for a doctorate degree. At the age of 17, Yi Sun, of San Jose, CA, applied combinatorial mathematics to derive a formula for the expected winding number of a random walk on a unit lattice. Scientists can use this research to predict how many times the polymer will coil around an obstacle, or rod, thus, indicating the strength of the polymer. Yi's astounding research is displayed in his portfolio entitled, ``Combinatorics: On the Expected Winding Number of a Random Walk on the Unit Lattice,'' and can be used in physics, computer science and material science. Yi recently graduated from The Harker School and will be attending Harvard in the fall. Yi plans to major in mathematics and physics and hopes to pursue careers in both fields. Thirteen-year-old Travis Johnson, of Milwaukie, OR, has been studying classical guitar since he was 8. Travis is establishing himself as an award-winning musician, and his portfolio is entitled ``Trails of Hope: The Importance of Adding New Music to the Classical Repertoire.'' Travis is currently home- schooled and taught privately by teachers outside of the home. He studies music at Marylhurst University. Master guitar classes have played a large role in his life the past few years, and likely will play a role in his career ambition to become a classical guitarist. Albert Shieh is a 16-year-old young man from Paradise Valley, AZ, who created a computational tool used to analyze genetic sequence variability in humans, which will help in developing a better understanding of gene sequence variations that occur when a single nucleotide in the genome sequence is altered. Albert's research portfolio, ``A Novel Algorithm for Automated SNP Genotyping,'' holds the promise to find the genetic basis for Alzheimer's disease, autism, and bipolar disorder with highly targeted, personalized treatments. Albert recently graduated from Chaparral High School and will attend Harvard in the fall and major in mathematics. Albert aspires to have a career as an intellectual property lawyer. Anna Stalker, a 15-year-old young woman from Birmingham, AL, addresses the persistent search for truth through different literary expressions and experiences in her portfolio, ``The Reincarnation Journals.'' In imagistic works, Anna explores the search for truth and beauty through depictions of human interaction and the interactions of the larger cosmos. When Anna's individual pieces are gathered, a larger meaning emerges. Entering her junior year at The Alamont School, Anna's main source of academic and social enrichment is the Duke Talent Identification Program, TIP. Although she has no concrete career goals yet, she is sure of one thing--she wants her life to be a meaningful reflection of her passions. A 17-year-old young woman from Beaverton, OR, Anarghya Vardhana worked in the field of number theory to develop new starting values for the Lucas-Lehmer primality test. Her theorem/method, found in her portfolio entitled ``Novel Method of Computing Jacobi Symbols for Mersenne Numbers,'' can directly contribute to the pharmaceutical, chemical, materials, financial and information technology industries. Her theory also has broad implications in cryptography, specifically enhancing encryption systems to protect against identity theft. A recent high school graduate, Anarghya will attend Stanford University in the fall, and is leaning towards a major in physics or biology combined with a math major or minor. Xin--Cindy--Wang is a 17-year-old from Geneva, IL, and is a recent graduate of the Illinois Math and Science Academy. Displayed in her portfolio, ``nm2608A, A New Naturally Arising Mouse Model for Human Autosomal Recessive Achromatopsia 2,'' is Xin's identification of a gene responsible for complete colorblindness in mice. Spanning genetics and ophthalmology, her results may one day be used to help people with achromatopsia 2, the most severe form of colorblindness, in which people can only see in shades of gray. I wish Xin much luck as she begins attending Harvard in the fall, where she will be working towards a major in a biology-related field and becoming a college professor. At the age of 16, Steven Wu, of Folsom, CA, is contributing to the scientific world in a major way. Steven designed a computer simulation algorithm that produces superior results when compared with the current commercial software in terms of better simulation of ion movement due to more accurate electrical field data. Steven's project is entitled ``Optimizing Quadruple Ion Trap Geometry by Computer Simulations.'' Advancements in ion trap geometry can improve all areas of laboratory science through mass spectrometry, as well as better monitoring of atmospheric pollutants and detecting hazardous chemical substances. Steven will be a senior at Mira Loma High School this fall. He plans to major in biomedical engineering/bioengineering, combining his interests in biochemistry and mathematics and eventually become a research physician/scientist. As I said, these young men and women are more than deserving of the awards they have earned. Through hard work and determination, these individuals have already made changes in the fields of science, writing, and mathematics, which will no doubt improve the lives of the many others all over the world. As the President indicated in his State of the Union address, our country's future competitiveness in the global economy will depend on bright and promising young people. Learning about these 16 remarkable students makes me optimistic about our Nation's future. I thank the Davidson Institute for their efforts to encourage and nurture our future leaders in a variety of fields and I thank these young and talented scholars for all of their innovative contributions to society.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to dispel claims being put forward by some that the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement will threaten U.S. national security. These critics of the agreement claim that it will give foreign port operators an absolute right to establish or acquire operations to run port facilities in the United States. They contend that, in this way, the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement could harm our national security. These claims are just plain wrong. First of all, the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement provides no new rights for Omanis or others to supply port related services in the United States. Omani companies are presently able to supply such services. The Oman agreement simply mirrors current U.S. law. So it is incorrect for anyone to claim that this trade agreement creates new rights for Omanis or others to contract with U.S. port owners to perform port services. In addition, U.S.--law specifically the Exon-Florio amendment to the Defense Production Act of 1950--authorizes the President to block foreign investment that would threaten our national security, including investments in port operations. The President delegates the authority to monitor and review foreign investments to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS. This free-trade agreement will not change the process of CFIUS in reviewing proposed investment in the United States. Thus, if the President determines that the investments of Oman or other countries in port services in the United States will threaten our national security, U.S. law provides that he can block such investments. The U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement in no way changes this existing law. Moreover, the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement at article 21.2 contains a ``national security'' exception. This article provides that nothing in the agreement can prevent the United States from taking any action that we consider necessary to protect our essential security interests. This exception is self-judging, which means that solely the United States can decide what constitutes our essential security interests. Contrary to the claims of some critics, neither an investor-state arbitration tribunal nor a dispute settlement panel has the authority to second-guess what the United States determines to be in its essential security interest. After all, once the United States invokes the national security exemption, there's nothing for a tribunal or panel to review. So it is clear that the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement doesn't diminish the right of the United States to determine whether to block any foreign investment in our country, including in port services. It is also clear that the Oman trade agreement doesn't create any new rights for Oman to supply port related services in the United States. Anyone who says otherwise is ignoring the facts. The U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement will benefit the United States. It will not pose security threats for the United States. If it did, I wouldn't be supporting it. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 5684, the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, in introducing the Medicare Data Access and Research Act. Senator Baucus and I have long enjoyed a good working relationship in our roles as chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee. Our work on this bill once again demonstrates our commitment to working in a bipartisan manner. The Medicare Data Access and Research Act establishes a process through which Federal agencies and other researchers can access Medicare data for the purpose of health services research. This might seem like a pretty mundane issue to some people, but I can assure you that it is far from it. Medicare processes 500 million claims for benefits each year; millions of prescriptions have been filled under the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. Linking data on hospital and physician services provided to Medicare beneficiaries to prescription drug data will offer a tremendous resource for researchers in our Federal agencies, as well as those based at universities and other research centers. What of research can these data support? They can support studies and analyses related to postmarketing surveillance of prescription drugs and research on drug safety. More concretely, analyzing the Medicare claims data can help agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration FDA, identify situations like the one involving Vioxx more quickly, and provide a new valuable tool to enable the FDA to take swifter action to protect the public's health and well-being. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Institutes of Health all have missions that require the conduct of meticulous health services research. The Medicare database and access to it established under the bill we are introducing today will help these agencies fulfill their missions to study immunization rates; to develop and monitor the use of preventive screenings; conduct research on the clinical comparative effectiveness of prescription drugs; and to help prevent, diagnose, and treat disease. To ensure access to the data, the bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enter data release agreements on an annual basis with these agencies. In entering the data release agreements, the Secretary must take appropriate steps to protect the confidentiality of the information, while maintaining the ability of researchers at Federal agencies to conduct meaningful analyses. The bill also permits the Secretary to enter into data use agreements to permit researchers at universities and other organizations to have access to the data. As will be the case for the Federal agencies, these researchers may only use the data for purposes of advancing the public's health. They can conduct studies on the safety, effectiveness, and quality of health services. Some people might be concerned that these data will be given to just anyone. That is not the case. In applying for data access, researchers at universities and other organizations will have to meet strict criteria. They must have well-documented experience in analyzing the type and volume of data to be provided under the agreement. They must agree to publish and publicly disseminate their research methodology and results. They must obtain approval for their study from a review board. They must comply with all safeguards established by the Secretary to ensure the confidentiality of information. These safeguards cannot permit the disclosure of information to an extent greater than permitted by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and the Privacy Act of 1974. The final section of the bill ensures that congressional support agencies, including the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service, the Government Accountability Office, and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, also have access to data they need to carry out their functions and responsibilities. This body depends on the research and analyses conducted by those agencies to inform our deliberations and decisions on the Medicare Program. Last year, Senator Baucus and I introduced the Medicare Value-Based Purchasing Act to establish a pay for performance system under Medicare. That bill was aimed at promoting quality and ensuring value under the Medicare Program. The bill that we are introducing today complements that objective. How can we promote quality and ensure value in Medicare? By having a better understanding of what services are effective, by knowing how we can help beneficiaries avoid illness and disease, by having insight about potential over-use and under-use of health care services, and by identifying troubling trends and patterns. How can we learn about those topics? By supporting rigorous health services research. Mr. President, the Medicare Data Access and Research Act creates a sound framework for accomplishing that objective. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, in introducing the Medicare Data Access and Research Act. Senator Baucus and I have long enjoyed a good working relationship in our roles as chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee. Our work on this bill once again demonstrates our commitment to working in a bipartisan manner. The Medicare Data Access and Research Act establishes a process through which Federal agencies and other researchers can access Medicare data for the purpose of health services research. This might seem like a pretty mundane issue to some people, but I can assure you that it is far from it. Medicare processes 500 million claims for benefits each year; millions of prescriptions have been filled under the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. Linking data on hospital and physician services provided to Medicare beneficiaries to prescription drug data will offer a tremendous resource for researchers in our Federal agencies, as well as those based at universities and other research centers. What of research can these data support? They can support studies and analyses related to postmarketing surveillance of prescription drugs and research on drug safety. More concretely, analyzing the Medicare claims data can help agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration FDA, identify situations like the one involving Vioxx more quickly, and provide a new valuable tool to enable the FDA to take swifter action to protect the public's health and well-being. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Institutes of Health all have missions that require the conduct of meticulous health services research. The Medicare database and access to it established under the bill we are introducing today will help these agencies fulfill their missions to study immunization rates; to develop and monitor the use of preventive screenings; conduct research on the clinical comparative effectiveness of prescription drugs; and to help prevent, diagnose, and treat disease. To ensure access to the data, the bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enter data release agreements on an annual basis with these agencies. In entering the data release agreements, the Secretary must take appropriate steps to protect the confidentiality of the information, while maintaining the ability of researchers at Federal agencies to conduct meaningful analyses. The bill also permits the Secretary to enter into data use agreements to permit researchers at universities and other organizations to have access to the data. As will be the case for the Federal agencies, these researchers may only use the data for purposes of advancing the public's health. They can conduct studies on the safety, effectiveness, and quality of health services. Some people might be concerned that these data will be given to just anyone. That is not the case. In applying for data access, researchers at universities and other organizations will have to meet strict criteria. They must have well-documented experience in analyzing the type and volume of data to be provided under the agreement. They must agree to publish and publicly disseminate their research methodology and results. They must obtain approval for their study from a review board. They must comply with all safeguards established by the Secretary to ensure the confidentiality of information. These safeguards cannot permit the disclosure of information to an extent greater than permitted by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and the Privacy Act of 1974. The final section of the bill ensures that congressional support agencies, including the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service, the Government Accountability Office, and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, also have access to data they need to carry out their functions and responsibilities. This body depends on the research and analyses conducted by those agencies to inform our deliberations and decisions on the Medicare Program. Last year, Senator Baucus and I introduced the Medicare Value-Based Purchasing Act to establish a pay for performance system under Medicare. That bill was aimed at promoting quality and ensuring value under the Medicare Program. The bill that we are introducing today complements that objective. How can we promote quality and ensure value in Medicare? By having a better understanding of what services are effective, by knowing how we can help beneficiaries avoid illness and disease, by having insight about potential over-use and under-use of health care services, and by identifying troubling trends and patterns. How can we learn about those topics? By supporting rigorous health services research. Mr. President, the Medicare Data Access and Research Act creates a sound framework for accomplishing that objective. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senate is about to pass the Port Security Improvement Act of 2006. This important legislation is the result of months of hard work between the Committee on Finance, which I chair, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. I thank again Chairman Stevens and Chairman Collins, as well as Senator Coleman, Senator Inouye and Senator Lieberman, and of course Senator Baucus, the ranking member on the Finance Committee, for coming together with me to produce a significant and balanced piece of legislation that advances both the trade and economic security interests of our Nation. As I have noted previously, those who intend harm to our Nation seek to inflict economic as well as physical injury. We must be mindful of both concerns as we defend the homeland. I am pleased to say that we in the Senate have done our part. The committees of jurisdiction came together, worked together, and produced a bill that will empower the Department of Homeland Security, and in particular the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, to better meet the dual responsibilities of securing the homeland and protecting the economic security of our Nation. Our legislation has been on the floor for a week, during which the Senate has worked its will. I look forward to working out our differences with the House so that we can get this legislation to the President's desk as soon as possible. I want to take a moment to thank the many staff who have worked so hard and so long to make this legislation a reality. On the Finance Committee, that begins with my chief counsel and staff director, Kolan Davis, whose skilled leadership is key to the advancement of my agenda on the committee. My international trade counsel, Stephen Schaefer, deserves special mention. Stephen is a very smart trade counsel, a creative problem solver, and a dedicated public servant. Tiffany McCullen Atwell, my international trade policy adviser, also deserves special mention. Tiffany was tireless in her efforts and a very strong and effective advocate for the Finance Committee. Together, their hard work and advocacy contributed significantly to the development of this legislation. I also want to recognize the other members of my trade staff, David Johanson, who serves me as international trade counsel, and Claudia Bridgeford, my international trade policy assistant. Their support is critical to my success. Senator Baucus's trade staff also deserves recognition. The Democratic staff director on the Finance Committee, Russ Sullivan, and the deputy staff director, Bill Dauster, worked well with my staff throughout the process. I also appreciate the efforts of Brian Pomper, Senator Baucus's chief, international trade counsel, and in particular Senator Baucus's international trade adviser, Anya Landau, who worked so closely and so well with my staff in this effort. And I want to acknowledge the other members of Senator Baucus's trade staff, Demetrios Marantis, Chelsea Thomas, Janis Lazda, and Mary Lisa Madell. Finally, I would like to thank Polly Craighill, senior counsel in the Office of the Senate Legislative Counsel, for the many hours she put into drafting and improving this legislation. Not only is Polly a perfectionist, but she also drives others to meet her high expectations and for that I am personally grateful. The bill before the Senate is much improved by virtue of her patience, dedication, and expertise.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, if I could follow on in the same vein in order to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished Democratic leader, knowing Senator Baucus, I bet he is so busy that he probably didn't even realize he was casting his 10,000th vote. I know it is a very major accomplishment; very few Members do that. I congratulate him. That signifies a lot of hard work in and of itself, but I think of the really hard work that Senator Baucus does working as a member of the Senate Committee on Finance--sometimes as chairman, sometimes as ranking member--and, more importantly, not just working hard but working in a cooperative way to get things done. I honor him. I didn't know anything about it. I am glad to hear about it. He should be recognized, and I thank him for the cooperation he has given to me over the years. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, everyone in this Chamber understands that we are in a political season. And that means we are going to be taking political votes. The amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota is indeed one of those votes. Now, Senator Dorgan is a friend of mine. We have worked together on a number of important issues. But let's face it. This amendment doesn't really do anything. It creates the appearance of a problem and then purports to resolve that illusory problem. So there really isn't any point to the amendment. But we also know, that no Member wants to be portrayed in a 3O-second television commercial as having voted against U.S. ownership of port operations. So I recommend to my colleagues that they support this do-nothing amendment. Let me explain why this amendment doesn't really do anything. This amendment says that after the date of enactment, the U.S. Trade Representative may not negotiate any bilateral or multilateral trade agreement that limits the Congress in its ability to restrict the operations or ownership of U.S. ports by a foreign country or person. But the fact is, our trade agreements do not prevent Congress from legislating on any matter, including ports. First off, Congress can always override an international agreement by passing subsequent legislation. That is an elementary principle of constitutional law. Moreover, our standard implementing legislation for trade agreements expressly states that if a provision of a trade agreement is inconsistent with any provision of U.S. law, then that provision in the trade agreement shall not have effect. In other words, in the event of an inconsistency between a trade agreement and U.S. law, Federal law prevails over the trade agreement. Yet this amendment suggests that the U.S. Trade Representative can somehow transcend our Constitution and Federal law by negotiating a trade agreement. That is ridiculous. It is false. But as I said, we are in a political season. So I suggest we accept this do-nothing amendment, recognizing it for the political act that it is, and we move on. It is critical that we move this important legislation through the Senate as soon as possible and avoid getting bogged down in politics.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment before the Senate that's been offered as a complete substitute to H.R. 4954. This legislation could not be more timely. The anniversary of September 11 is imminent, a stark reminder that our Nation must remain vigilant in the global war on terror. This amendment, the Port Security Improvement Act of 2006, is critically important legislation. It strengthens port security operations, both in the United States and abroad so we can prevent threats from reaching our shores in the first place. This legislation improves existing programs for targeting and inspecting cargo containers so that a dangerous shipment doesn't enter or threaten the Nation. It provides direction for further strengthening of these programs as technological advances permit. And, it calls for greater coordination and cooperation among Federal agencies in contingency planning in the event there is a security breach. This legislation represents a thoughtful reevaluation of how best to meet the Nation's security interests at United States seaports. We have taken a look at what has been done since 9/11. This legislation builds upon that. Terrorists have proven that they will change their ways to exploit perceived weaknesses in our defenses. We need to stay ahead of them. This legislation empowers our personnel in the Department of Homeland Security and United States Border and Customs Protection to do just that. At the same time, this legislation includes provisions to strengthen the economic security of our Nation. It's important to remember that in addition to killing innocent Americans, the 9/11 attacks were intended to wreak economic havoc and injury upon our Nation. This legislation includes provisions that realign resources to ensure better efficiency in the administration of customs laws within the United States Customs and Border Protection. It authorizes the International Trade Data System, a forward-looking program to better utilize technology in order to increase efficiency and facilitate trade. And, it provides for added resources to better meet all of our economic and trade security interests that are overseen by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. In sum, this legislation is the culmination of months of hard and thoughtful work. I thank my ranking member on the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, my colleagues on the Commerce Committee, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, and my colleagues on the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, with whom I have worked so closely to bring this legislation to the floor. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in advancing this essential legislation through the Senate in a timely manner.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to PFC William Edgerton Thorn who died honorably Thursday, August 24 at 8 a.m. in Baghdad at the age of 26. He was killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom after an improvised explosive devise detonated near his vehicle. Given the opportunity to protect the people he loved and his strong belief in the cause, Willy, as he was known among family and friends, fought proudly. Similarly, Corey, his wife, is serving her country in Iraq. The couple was married on November 10, 2001 and enlisted in the Army in May of 2005. While they realized the dangers and hardships, they were willing to risk their lives for the freedom of others. My thoughts and prayers are with Corey Thorne at this difficult time, and I thank her for her service and tremendous sacrifice. Willy loved making children laugh, and he and his wife hoped to save enough money to adopt a baby. His death is deeply mourned by his hometown, Rock Valley, and throughout the nation. Thus there is great truth in what Willy's mother-in-law, Deb Jasper, said ``A fallen soldier hits everyone because they have fallen for each and every one of us. What a sacrifice. What an honor.'' We, the American people, are forever indebted to Willy for his great strength and heroic sacrifice. Staff Sergeant Jeffrey J. Hansen

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I agree with Senator Allard on his understanding and our intent that the Secretary should make a final determination very quickly after a currently existing Type III supporting organization seeks exemption from the excess business holdings rules. The determination should be made by the Secretary within 6 months after the exemption is sought. The joint committee will have a description of several factors that the Secretary should consider in making decisions to waive. The considered views of the State Attorney General should be a part of that decision. In addition, if the shares of the entity and related persons is not controlling or the individual and related persons are bound to ultimately contribute all but a de minimus share to the charity and have no direct or indirect control of that charity and its investments those are additional factors the Secretary can consider.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am happy to engage my distinguished colleague about what the intent with this exemption is, and how we have worked to limit the unintended consequences for legitimate charitable organizations. As you are aware, some of us with interest in this provision in working to address any unintended consequences thought it would be a good idea to give the Secretary the ability to exempt from the excess business holdings rules Type III supporting organizations in certain limited circumstances.