Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I have 15 minutes, and if I need 5 minutes off of the leader's time, I could have it. Would you please inform me when my 15 minutes are up, and if I need a little bit more time, without asking unanimous consent at that time, to take it off of leader time. Does the Chair understand what I am talking about?

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Chair. I will use a little bit of time off the leader's time. A week ago, I said some colleagues want to engage in a riverboat gamble involving these popular tax relief provisions by including it with the death tax. They call Chairman Thomas's bill the trifecta bill. I will treat the proponents with more respect than they have treated this chairman and the institution of the Finance Committee. I will support this bill. The burden is on the proponents of this gambit to produce. But to do that, they are going to have to deal with the realities of the votes in the Senate. People want and should expect that Congress will provide certainty in estate planning. My colleagues have placed all the chips on the table. It is on them to make sure it is a winning hand. If the trifecta bill fails, they need to answer to those millions of Americans who relied on our promise and good will as legislators. I also have a message for the Democratic leadership. While I am frustrated with my leadership, let me say that it should also be clear that the Democratic leadership has been more eager to produce press releases than results. The Democratic leadership has been actively and aggressively undermining efforts to reach a deal. This has only served to deny relief from the death tax for America's small business and family farmers. This obstruction has also forced these farmers and small business owners to have to live with continued uncertainty of the current death tax structure. That is not right. The people's business should be done. The time has come for the Democratic leadership to stop playing politics with family farmers and small business folks and let responsible Democrats work on a fair compromise. It is wrong that the Democratic leadership is preventing Senators from voting their consciences in this manner. Senators should be allowed to put the interests of their constituents first instead of the priorities of the Democratic leadership. When you cut through all the finger-pointing and the press releases, both sides are to blame that we can't get these extenders done. Both death tax and expiring provisions should be processed in a bipartisan, constructive way. We should be realistic and seek to accomplish the possible. Let's do the people's business. Mr. President, I will support the bill before us, but should it fail, I will use my best efforts to do what needs to be done. I will stick by my word to the American people and ask those who give their word to keep it with me. Either result would be right for the people. To do neither and not act on extenders would be the wrong thing for the people. That is why we are here to serve the people. We are here to govern.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I am going to support the trifecta bill. I want to speak about the bill and around the bill and about the environment that has taken place over the last week. On a preliminary note, I would like to talk a little bit about the nickname of this bill. Its authors in the House and Senate came up with that nickname. They call it the ``trifecta'' bill. Many folks know I'm a bit of a frugal person. You'd definitely hear it from my staff. Some might say I am cheap. I would say frugal. Frugal folks tend to be drudges and a bit predictable, but, at the end of the day, frugality tends to mean that you have your house to go home to and a little bit of savings in the bank. You don't see a lot of frugal folks that take big speculative gambles. So, when I saw this term ``Trifecta,'' not being much of a gambler, I didn't know what it meant. I asked my staff about it. They explained that it was a horse or dog racing term. It refers to a compound bet. That is, the bettor places a bet on three horses. The bettor indicates which horses will win, place, and show. I asked my staff about the typical odds on a trifecta in a horse race. They picked the 2006 Kentucky Derby. According to the record, Barbaro was favored to win by 6 to 1 odds, Bluegrass Cat was 30 to 1 odds to win, and Steppenwolfer was 30 to 1 odds to win. The $2 Trifecta paid $11,418 which is a pay-out of $5,709 per every dollar. Big pay-off. Long odds. So does our trifecta have those kind of odds? The answer is no, but it does require 60 Senators to payoff. Being a frugal person and a cautious legislator, you can see how I might have problems with trifecta legislative strategy. I guess I would look at this exercise as that kind of longshot. With Senate votes as horses, let's take a look. At the last race, on a motion to proceed to the House death tax repeal bill, 57 horses came in. So, the bet was to find 3 horses among the horses that ran the other direction and turn them around. As a farmer with some experience with horses, let me say, once they're out of the barn and running around, it's hard to turn them around. Senators can be similar, especially when a vote is highly political. It looks to me like we may not turn around many of the horses today. I hope I am wrong. If I am right, the bottom line is that we bet on the wrong horses. Maybe we should've taken a bet that was more likely to pay-off. Now, I want to turn to the substance of the bill before us. What's this trifecta bill all about? There are really three key pieces. The first piece is permanent death tax relief. The second piece deals with expiring tax provisions and some other items, known as the ``trailer bill.'' The last piece is a Federal minimum wage increase. I am not going to describe the minimum wage piece. It is not in my committee, the Finance Committee's, jurisdiction. It was an add-on by the House. I really have no history with it and feel no reason to explain it, support it, criticize it, or defend it. I will leave that to others. From a personal standpoint, I have supported minimum wage increases in the past. I'll continue to support them as long as the increase doesn't raise teen unemployment and doesn't hurt small business. I am going to focus on the first two pieces of the trifecta. That is, the death tax relief and the trailer bill. Those matters are squarely within the Finance Committee's jurisdiction. I have some history with those issues. I care a great deal about the policy in both of those areas. As chairman, I feel a lot of responsibility for the tax policy in these areas. Let's take a look at death tax relief first. I support repeal. I take it from the vote we had on the motion to proceed to the death tax repeal bill that a majority of the Senate also supports repeal or some sort of significant relief. I want to make it clear to the people listening, who may not understand how the Senate works, why we need 60 votes. A vast majority of this Senate supports repeal of the death tax, but it won't happen because of the 60-vote requirement. In this case, I did some checking around on the votes after the cloture motion failed. It became apparent to me, after conversations with members, staff, and interested parties that the bar for getting the 60 votes was pretty high. At first, the impression was kind of fuzzy, but it became clear as the weeks moved on. Several barriers existed for the Republican leadership and Senator Kyl. One, the fact that we were then so close to an election had politicized the issue. The Democratic leadership were becoming invested in blocking a Republican accomplishment. They made it clear to Democratic Senators who might otherwise be willing to work towards good policy that those Senators would face the wrath of the Democratic Caucus. Moreover, the Democratic leadership exploited the policy positions that Senator Kyl and others considered priorities. Even though Republicans moved, the movement never seemed to be enough. Also, Democrats were focusing on points that they knew the Republican negotiators could not be flexible. It was a troublesome negotiation. Unfortunately, members and staff often heard what they wanted to hear. This pattern only got worse as time went on. While these negotiations were going on, there was a parallel track developing. The Senate Republican leadership came up with a different plan. The plan was to add the death tax compromise to the pension conference. I counseled against it because I thought the mix of conferees would not be agreeable to it and it would be an awkward position to a broadly bipartisan bill. Nevertheless, I agreed to consider this maneuver if the proponents could show me a path to 60 votes. The proponents went against my counsel and did not deliver on the one thing I asked them to do: show me the votes. That plan didn't work because, as I predicted, a majority of the conferees were not supportive of it, and I was one of the conferees who would have supported it. After 4 months of tough negotiations, none of the senior conferees, all of whom were invested in the pension policy, were keen to the idea either. And here, I am talking about both House and Senate conferees, Republicans and Democrats. The mission was launched and quickly aborted. Along came plan B. Plan B was the result of my ``wily'' counterpart-- you know, the guy who, according to House colleagues and staff, supposedly ``snookers'' the Senate year in and year out in conferences. My House counterpart, who, like the rest of the conferees, was never on board with the pension plan, raised this plan B with me. Plan B was the idea of combining some new death tax compromise with the trailer bill. I counseled against this plan. It was clear that pursuing this plan would cause problems with completing the pension conference. Chairman Enzi backed me in this view. Once again, I asked the proponents to show me the path to 60 votes. Once again, they didn't show the path, and then, as you know, they went ahead over my objection. So we are where we are right now at almost 9 o'clock on Thursday. The process was lousy and offensive, but the substance is good. I will support the bill's death tax relief proposal. I wish this death tax policy would become law. If that does not happen, then we have to think about the next step. We have to keep our eye on the ball. We should be aiming for good death tax policy and for the 60 votes on how to get there. We have all learned a few things in this painful process. One, death tax is a unique kind of issue. It is not like other tax issues. It is a moral issue to folks on both sides of the aisle. To be politically palatable, the death tax proposal needs to be either in isolation or proportionate if combined with other tax proposals. Small so-called sweeteners don't get us over the goal line. Holding up popular must-do current law tax provisions also doesn't get us there. Just look at the vote counts in the House on the various bills. Those vote counts show what I am talking about. So right now, we are stuck. The Democratic leadership is holding back Members from voting their consciences and their State interests. That resistance is there now, and it is very strong. It won't last past the political season. The Democratic caucus will be accountable. If the trifecta bill fails, we will be back, but we won't get anywhere until we are out of the political season. That is the ugly political fact I have to convey to Senators Kyl, Lincoln, and others who have worked in a bipartisan way to get this done. I took a look in the Tax Code and the recent history of the death tax relief. In the past 20 years, comprehensive death tax relief occurred two times: in 1997, in a bipartisan tax relief bill, and in 2001 on another bipartisan tax relief bill. Both were produced by Finance Committee members with a bipartisan working group and the involvement of the chairman. My judgment is that if the trifecta bill fails, this is the way we are going to have to go again. Now I turn to the other part of the trifecta, the so-called trailer bill. In this Congress, I have fought long and hard for extension of tax provisions that expired at the end of last year, now 8 months into the expired year. The extension provisions were included in the tax reconciliation bill which passed the Senate in the spring. Let's consider how we got here on extenders and the trailer package. Extenders were part of a package deal that I argued for in the Budget Committee. When the Budget Committee met in February and March of last year, I asked for $90 billion. The $90 billion was meant to cover expiring provisions, including capital gains and dividend rates and the hold harmless for the alternative minimum tax. Chairman Gregg agreed to a reconciliation instruction of $70 billion. In committee and on the floor, I defended the reconciliation instruction as part of this plan. Including extenders was a key part of the strategy. It came up a lot in debate. It was a factor in holding the instruction on the floor and in conference. When the reconciliation bill was marked up in the Finance Committee, the extenders were part of the same package deal. The inclusion of 2 years of extenders on the floor helped us hold the Finance Committee bill together. When we went to conference, the House brought a year of extenders, no AMT hold harmless, and 2 years of capital gains and dividends. Although we could not get 2 years of capital gains and dividends through this Senate the first time, I knew it was important to the Republican leadership, especially Senator Kyl, and I would even put myself in that category. We could not fit all the pieces together because, in part, the House would not take our anti-tax shelter measures and loophole closers. Something had to drop. That something was what we call the extenders. Now, because the extenders were part of the plan and we were also into the expired year, I insisted on assurances from Chairman Thomas of the House Ways and Means Committee and also from the bicameral leadership. At that time, I released a statement stating that we would be putting the extenders in the pension conference report. This statement was based on assurances that I had from leaders in both the House and the Senate. I asked for those assurances to do the right thing from a policy perspective and also a political perspective. From the policy perspective, the taxpayers should be able to rely on the tax legislative process. This should be especially true with respect to the current law expiring provisions that enjoy overwhelming bipartisan support. From a political perspective, I asked for those assurances to defend Republican Senators who would be attacked when the reconciliation conference agreement was announced. Indeed, those attacks did come, and I referred to the assurances in defending the Senators who were under attack. In addition, several Republican Senators asked me to make sure there was a glidepath to those extenders. For instance, Senator Hutchison raised the State sales tax deductibility extender in a Senate Republican leadership meeting. Republican high-tech coalition members asked for similar assurances. My interest has always been to accomplish what is possible, not taking chances with widely applicable tax relief measures on which millions of taxpayers are relying. For example, over 12 million Americans benefit from the State sales tax. We have charts up. I am not going to take time to refer to them much, so I hope the audience will look and study them. Over 12 million Americans benefit from the State sales tax deduction. Over 3 million teachers benefit from tax deductions for education expenses. Teachers have prepared for the upcoming school year, and they don't know whether supplies they buy out of their own pocket will be deductible. Over 3.5 million families benefit from the college tuition deduction.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following fellows with the Finance Committee be allowed the privilege of the floor during the Senate's consideration of the tax bills today: Mary Baker and Stuart Sirkin.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, after great effort by many people, the Senate has voted to agree to H.R. 4, the Pension Protection Act of 2006. Credit must go to the dedicated members of my staff, who spent many hours over many months working on the issues that ultimately led to this bill. Kolan Davis, Mark Prater, John O'Neill, Dean Zerbe, Elizabeth Paris, Chris Javens, Cathy Barre, Anne Freeman, Elizabeth Goff, and Nick Wyatt showed great dedication to the tasks before them. As is usually the case, the cooperation of Senator Baucus and his staff was extremely valuable. I particularly want to thank Russ Sullivan, Patrick Heck, Bill Dauster, Judy Miller, Stuart Sirkin, Jon Selib, Melissa Mueller, Rebecca Baxter and Ryan Abraham. I want to show my appreciation towards HELP Committee Chairman Enzi's staff, including Katherine McGuire, Greg Dean, Diann Howland and David Thompson. I want to thank Portia Wu and Holly Fechner along with the rest of HELP Committee Ranking Member Kennedy's staff. I also want to thank the staff of Finance Committee member conferees on the pension bill. They include Evan Liddiard, Brendan Dunn, Manny Rossman, Wes Coulam, Jennifer Perkins, Jen Vesey, Amy Barber, Steve Bailey, and James Dennis. I also want to mention Thomas Barthold, the acting chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation and his staff. The efforts of Carolyn Smith, Patricia McDermott, and Nicole Flax were invaluable. Roger Colinvaux, Gordon Clay, and Ron Schultz provided great assistance with the charitable provisions that are in the bill. I also want to thank Theresa Pattara, who worked on my staff as a legislative fellow, for her work on the charitable provisions. Finally, I want to show my appreciation to the staff of Senate Legislative Counsel, including Jim Fransen, Mark Mathiesen, Stacey Kern, and Mark McGunagle. Mr. President, after great effort by many people, the Senate has voted to agree to H.R. 4, the Pension Protection Act of 2006. Credit must go to the dedicated members of my staff, who spent many hours over many months working on the issues that ultimately led to this bill. Kolan Davis, Mark Prater, John O'Neill, Dean Zerbe, Elizabeth Paris, Chris Javens, Cathy Barre, Anne Freeman, Elizabeth Goff, and Nick Wyatt showed great dedication to the tasks before them. As is usually the case, the cooperation of Senator Baucus and his staff was extremely valuable. I particularly want to thank Russ Sullivan, Patrick Heck, Bill Dauster, Judy Miller, Stuart Sirkin, Jon Selib, Melissa Mueller, Rebecca Baxter and Ryan Abraham. I want to show my appreciation towards HELP Committee Chairman Enzi's staff, including Katherine McGuire, Greg Dean, Diann Howland and David Thompson. I want to thank Portia Wu and Holly Fechner along with the rest of HELP Committee Ranking Member Kennedy's staff. I also want to thank the staff of Finance Committee Member conferees on the pension bill. They include Evan Liddiard, Brendan Dunn, Manny Rossman, Wes Coulam, Jennifer Perkins, Jen Vesey, Amy Barber, Steve Bailey, and James Dennis. I also want to mention Thomas Barthold, the acting Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation and his staff. The efforts of Carolyn Smith, Patricia McDermott, and Nicole Flax were invaluable. Roger Colinvaux [CallIn-Vo], Gordon Clay, and Ron Schultz provided great assistance with the charitable provisions that are in the bill. I also want to thank Theresa Pattara, who worked on my staff as a legislative fellow, for her work on the charitable provisions. Finally, I want to show my appreciation to the staff of Senate Legislative Counsel, including Jim Fransen, Mark Mathiesen, Stacey Kern, and Mark McGunagle. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Pension 7 Protection Act of 2006. Every Member of the U.S. Senate should be proud to support this bill. This is a bill that is about one thing--improving the retirement security of all Americans. It been a long road to get here. There were times, I will tell you, when I wondered if we would ever get here. But the fact that we are here today shows that when people stick to a goal and work together, you can get great things done for the American people. I want to commend Chairman Enzi for his outstanding leadership and his perseverance in leading us here today. I can tell you that it wasn't an easy job. I am also very pleased to commend the great work of my colleague and good friend, Senator Baucus, who was my partner in the Finance Committee and all the way through conference on this legislation. We worked together and our staffs worked together. I wish he could be here with me today to see final passage of this legislation, but as we all know, he is attending to family matters that are far more important than anything we could be doing here in the U.S. Senate. I also want to thank Senator Kennedy, who worked tirelessly on this bill and was critical to the bipartisan bill before us. Why is this a good bill? I could spend all night talking about all of the positive reforms in this bill, but don't worry--I am not going to do that at 10 o'clock here tonight. But I do want to highlight a few parts of this legislation that will make Americans more secure in their retirement. First and foremost, this bill will ensure that American workers can depend on their pensions. They will know that their pension will actually be there for them when they retire. This bill will also protect the PBGC from absorbing billions of dollars in pension liabilities from bankrupt airlines and give those airlines' employees an opportunity to receive the full pension they've been promised. This bill will protect workers from the next Enron by prohibiting employers from stuffing company stock in their 401(k) plans. This bill will make permanent the bipartisan retirement savings provisions from the 2001 tax relief bill--increased 401(k) and IRA limits, a permanent low-income Savers' Credit, greater portability of retirement assets, and a wide array of other pro-savings initiatives. These provisions are vital to building a ``savers' society,'' and I am proud that these provisions originated in the Senate Finance Committee and were included in the 2001 tax bill at the insistence of myself and Senator Baucus. This bill will also encourage greater participation in retirement plans by promoting automatic enrollment arrangements. These are just a few of the key reforms in this bill. This is legislation that every Member of the Senate can truly be proud to support. I look forward to seeing the President sign it into law. I would like to incorporate by reference a technical explanation being prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation that describes the legislative intent with respect to H.R. 4, the Pension Protection Act of 2006. This document expresses our understanding of the provisions in the bill, and it will be a useful reference in understanding the legislation. Chairman Thomas also made a statement on the floor of the House of Representatives last Friday that he had requested this technical explanation. The technical explanation will be published by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation as document number JCX-38-06, Technical Explanation of H.R. 4, The Pension Protection Act of 2006, as passed by the House on July 28, 2006, and as considered by the Senate on August 3, 2006.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I am happy to confirm the understanding of my distinguished colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, regarding this provision. The provision is intended to buttress current exemption standards by providing additional standards that must be met for a credit counseling organization to claim exempt status. As the Senator knows, the IRS recently has challenged the exempt status of several credit counseling organizations because they are operated for a substantial non-exempt purpose, substantial private benefit and private inurement. Certain of these organizations exist merely to generate income from the sale of debt management plans, while providing minimal exempt purpose activities related to credit counseling. The standards imposed under this provision are intended to augment, not supplant, the IRS efforts and to ensure that exemption from consumer protection laws applies only to those organizations that can satisfy stricter tax- exempt standards. I also want to assure the distinguished Senator from New Mexico that we will continue to monitor developments in this industry to ensure that only those entities that serve a sufficient charitable and educational purpose can claim tax-exempt status and that such tax-exempt entities do not generate significant revenues from activities unrelated to their exempt purposes. If it turns out that the additional standards imposed by this legislation do not have the desired impact, you can be assured that we will not hesitate to revisit this area.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate my distinguished colleague from Virginia, Senator Allen, raising this concern. I can assure him that he is correct that it makes perfect sense for provisions intended to encourage employers to fund their defined benefit pension plans by increasing the deduction limits to have the same effective date. I also agree that this should especially be true for provisions that update deduction limits for employers with a combination of plans. I look forward to working with my colleague on addressing this oversight.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, yes, the provision is intended to get at fair share type payments, but note that agencies and creditors cannot get around the provision merely by re-labeling fair share payments as something else. This is the intent of this provision. I am also aware of a specific issue affecting a few States and their existing State law, and the provision before us today specifically includes a transition period in part to allow the reconciliation of various State statutes with the new federal provision. I will work with interested Senators during this period on their concerns regarding existing organizations. I thank Mr. Coleman and Mr. Sessions for helping to clarify its intent. Modifications to Sections 801 and 803

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I strongly support S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. I would like to thank Senator Domenici, chairman of the Energy Committee, for his hard work in making this compromise possible. This legislation is a much needed step to increase the domestic production of natural gas and crude oil. In recent years, the cost for natural gas has risen from the moderate, stable level of $3 per thousand cubic feet to $6, and even exceeded $10 last fall. Current prices are three times the average during the 1990s. In just the past few days, natural gas prices have risen by nearly 15 percent. Why? Because the current heat wave crossing the country is putting a strain on our Nation's electrical grid--an electrical grid that is increasingly dependent on electricity generated from natural gas. And, while the demand for natural gas has increased, we have done little as a nation to ensure that there is access to the domestic supply to meet the growing demand. For too many years, our country has had a ``natural gas and nothing else'' policy. The Energy Policy Act, which we enacted a year ago, took significant steps to diversify our energy production and increase energy efficiency. The Energy bill included provisions to expand the use of clean coal and advanced nuclear technologies. It also included provisions to expand the use of renewable and alternative energy and energy conservation. All of these provisions will help in the long term to balance and diversify our energy portfolio. However, we need to take action today to increase the supply of domestically produced energy. The fact is, consumers in the United States are paying some of the highest natural gas costs in the world. This puts our farmers, manufacturers, and industrial users of natural gas at a competitive disadvantage. Few things are as important to the livelihood and well-being of Iowa's economy than natural gas. Although the State of Iowa is considered a national leader in the agricultural industry, our manufacturing industry actually contributes five to six times more to Iowa's economy than agriculture. Manufacturers have been particularly hard hit by the increase in prices because they consume over one-third of our country's natural gas. I have heard from manufacturers across Iowa who have urged Congress to act to increase the supply of affordable natural gas. Farming is also an extremely energy-intensive industry. Farmers and ranchers need large amounts of natural gas for drying crops, heating buildings, producing ethanol, and most importantly, as the feedstock of chemicals and fertilizers. The vast majority of the cost of nitrogen fertilizers is natural gas. Numerous domestic manufacturers of ammonia and nitrogen fertilizer have closed in recent years due to higher costs. As a result, prices for their products have increased. Ammonia for fall application this year will cost a farmer nearly $400 a ton. This is double what it was just a few years ago. This legislation will also help my constituents with their home heating and electricity bills. A significant portion of Iowa households use natural gas for their home heating. Even while the past few winters have been relatively mild, home heating bills have doubled and tripled for some families. And, while I have been an ardent supporter of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program that helps the less fortunate pay for home heating, we must also recognize that the high prices are a result of the tight energy supply. One way to ensure that consumers aren't forced to choose between heating their home and putting food on the table is to lower the price for natural gas. That is why I am eager to see this bill pass. The compromise bill before us will open up 8.3 million acres on the Outer Continental Shelf for oil and gas leasing. It requires that leasing begin as soon as practicable but no later than 1 year after the date of enactment. This area is estimated to hold 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 1.26 billion barrels of oil. This legislation will take a significant step to enhance our county's domestic energy supply. This bill is a proactive response to the rising cost of energy and our growing dependence on foreign sources of crude oil. It is a bipartisan agreement that has the support of the Gulf State Senators, and it deserves our full support. I encourage my colleagues to vote in support of this bill which will increase our energy supplies and help stabilize prices for our consumers, farmers, and manufacturers.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize two acts of selfless courage that exemplify the willingness of Iowans to accept and fulfill their Nation's call to duty. The actions of US Marine Corps Sgt. R.J. Mitchell and Sergeant Major Bradley Kasal have earned each of them the Navy Cross. Awarded for their actions during a November 2004 assault on Fallujah, the Navy Cross is among the highest awards for gallantry our Nation can bestow on those who serve. More than this, they have earned the respect of a nation and the thanks of its people by ensuring that the cause of freedom and its protection not only survives but thrives in the face of every challenge. Sergeant Mitchell, who grew up near Carson, IA, was awarded the Navy Cross on July 28. Sergeant Major Kasal, originally from Afton, IA received his award May 1 as well as a promotion to sergeant major. During an assault on a house in Fallujah, both Iowans charged to the aid of fellow wounded marines, remaining in the line of fire and continuing to provide leadership to fellow marines until the last injured marine was safely evacuated. Over the course of the engagement, both sustained wounds from enemy fire and shrapnel but continued on in harm's way, saving the lives of several marines as a result of their selfless actions. I extend my personal gratitude, that of all Iowans, and all Americans, to these brave marines. It is in their selfless acts of courage that the very meaning of honor can be found. The Navy Cross is more than an adornment, it symbolizes the respect and appreciation of the American people. Through these heroic acts in service to their country, Brad Kasal and R.J. Mitchell truly embodied the motto of Iowa, ``Our liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain.''

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join once again my good friend and colleague Senator Baucus to introduce the Wage Index Accuracy Improvement Act. The Wage Index Accuracy Improvement Act enables the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CMS, to improve the accuracy of Medicare payments for acute care hospital services. Under Medicare, acute care hospitals are paid for inpatient services through the hospital inpatient prospective payment system, IPPS. Around 3,500 hospitals received payment through the IPPS totaling approximately $100 billion in fiscal year 2004. As you know, hospitals in the United States vary greatly in terms of size, geographic location, types of patients served and staffing. Since a ``one size fits all'' approach to paying hospitals would not fairly compensate hospitals for the inpatient services they provide to Medicare patients, payments under the IPPS are adjusted to take into account these differences. CMS has been refining one such adjustment, as required by law, and has limited its application until it has been adequately developed. This significant adjustment, the area wage index, is intended to account for differences in prices for labor in different markets. In order to ensure that the wage index accurately reflects the difference in labor costs among different areas and not a hospital's employment choices, an occupational mix adjustment is also applied to the wage index. For example, a hospital choosing to employ predominantly registered nurses would have higher labor costs than a hospital employing--less- expensive--licensed practical nurses. Because a hospital's staffing practices are unrelated to area wages, its staff composition should not influence the area wage index. CMS collected data in 2004 from hospitals for purposes of calculating the occupational mix adjustment; however, because of reasons including the agency's lack of confidence in the data, only 10 percent of the wage index was adjusted for occupational mix in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. Questions concerning the reliability of these data can be seen in my home State of Iowa. Since the State is largely rural, Iowa hospitals generally employ a less expensive mix of personnel. One would expect the occupational mix adjustment to the wage index to benefit these hospitals; however, the opposite effect has occurred. In fact, it is estimated that the occupational mix adjustment has adversely affected 8 of the 10 geographic locations in Iowa. CMS originally proposed to continue this limited adjustment for occupational mix in fiscal year 2007, but a Federal appellate court ordered the agency to apply the occupational mix adjustment, based on data collected in 2006, to 100 percent of the wage index effective for fiscal year 2007. CMS collected these data hurriedly, using only 3 months of data, and will not be able to post the final wage index information until after the fiscal year 2007 inpatient hospital rates are announced. Moreover, since the data collection instrument has changed from the last time CMS collected data, CMS will not have sufficient time to analyze fully the data and determine their accuracy. Given the lack of opportunity to ensure data accuracy, the uncertainty of how the occupational mix adjustment will affect hospital payments, and the disruption that can occur in moving immediately from a 10-percent adjustment for occupational mix to a 100-percent adjustment, the Medicare Wage Index Improvement Act would limit application of the occupational mix to the current rate for a 2-year period. This legislation would give CMS the opportunity to look at the data and act accordingly both to apply the occupational mix adjustment to the wage index appropriately and to avoid disruptions. In the meantime, the Medicare Wage Index Improvement Act would require CMS to evaluate the way in which they collect data for and calculate the occupational mix adjustment and present us with recommendations by January 1, 2008. I would also like to point out that the changes required under this legislation would be budget neutral because the Social Security Act requires that aggregate payments under this adjustment not be greater or less than payments made without the adjustment. Mr. President, adjusting inpatient hospital payments under Medicare can have significant effects on a hospital's financial health. These adjustments should therefore be adequately developed to ensure that payments are accurate and not fully implemented until they are ready. In the case of the wage index adjustment, let's provide CMS the opportunity to get the job done right.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join once again my good friend and colleague Senator Baucus to introduce the Wage Index Accuracy Improvement Act. The Wage Index Accuracy Improvement Act enables the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CMS, to improve the accuracy of Medicare payments for acute care hospital services. Under Medicare, acute care hospitals are paid for inpatient services through the hospital inpatient prospective payment system, IPPS. Around 3,500 hospitals received payment through the IPPS totaling approximately $100 billion in fiscal year 2004. As you know, hospitals in the United States vary greatly in terms of size, geographic location, types of patients served and staffing. Since a ``one size fits all'' approach to paying hospitals would not fairly compensate hospitals for the inpatient services they provide to Medicare patients, payments under the IPPS are adjusted to take into account these differences. CMS has been refining one such adjustment, as required by law, and has limited its application until it has been adequately developed. This significant adjustment, the area wage index, is intended to account for differences in prices for labor in different markets. In order to ensure that the wage index accurately reflects the difference in labor costs among different areas and not a hospital's employment choices, an occupational mix adjustment is also applied to the wage index. For example, a hospital choosing to employ predominantly registered nurses would have higher labor costs than a hospital employing--less- expensive--licensed practical nurses. Because a hospital's staffing practices are unrelated to area wages, its staff composition should not influence the area wage index. CMS collected data in 2004 from hospitals for purposes of calculating the occupational mix adjustment; however, because of reasons including the agency's lack of confidence in the data, only 10 percent of the wage index was adjusted for occupational mix in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. Questions concerning the reliability of these data can be seen in my home State of Iowa. Since the State is largely rural, Iowa hospitals generally employ a less expensive mix of personnel. One would expect the occupational mix adjustment to the wage index to benefit these hospitals; however, the opposite effect has occurred. In fact, it is estimated that the occupational mix adjustment has adversely affected 8 of the 10 geographic locations in Iowa. CMS originally proposed to continue this limited adjustment for occupational mix in fiscal year 2007, but a Federal appellate court ordered the agency to apply the occupational mix adjustment, based on data collected in 2006, to 100 percent of the wage index effective for fiscal year 2007. CMS collected these data hurriedly, using only 3 months of data, and will not be able to post the final wage index information until after the fiscal year 2007 inpatient hospital rates are announced. Moreover, since the data collection instrument has changed from the last time CMS collected data, CMS will not have sufficient time to analyze fully the data and determine their accuracy. Given the lack of opportunity to ensure data accuracy, the uncertainty of how the occupational mix adjustment will affect hospital payments, and the disruption that can occur in moving immediately from a 10-percent adjustment for occupational mix to a 100-percent adjustment, the Medicare Wage Index Improvement Act would limit application of the occupational mix to the current rate for a 2-year period. This legislation would give CMS the opportunity to look at the data and act accordingly both to apply the occupational mix adjustment to the wage index appropriately and to avoid disruptions. In the meantime, the Medicare Wage Index Improvement Act would require CMS to evaluate the way in which they collect data for and calculate the occupational mix adjustment and present us with recommendations by January 1, 2008. I would also like to point out that the changes required under this legislation would be budget neutral because the Social Security Act requires that aggregate payments under this adjustment not be greater or less than payments made without the adjustment. Mr. President, adjusting inpatient hospital payments under Medicare can have significant effects on a hospital's financial health. These adjustments should therefore be adequately developed to ensure that payments are accurate and not fully implemented until they are ready. In the case of the wage index adjustment, let's provide CMS the opportunity to get the job done right.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Yvonne R. Goodman. Funeral services were held for her this morning. Yvonne served on my Washington, DC, staff in the Senate and in the House of Representatives for a total of 28 years, and she worked for my predecessor in the House of Representatives, Congressman H.R. Gross, for 25 years. She began helping me the first day I arrived on Capitol Hill and continued until she retired in 2002. In total, Yvonne served the people of Iowa for a remarkable 53 years. There is no doubt that Iowans benefited from her loyalty to their representatives in the Congress and her standard of excellence in her work. I was very fortunate to have her on my staff. Yvonne was from Osage, IA. She was a special person and a valuable and trusted employee. She made a great contribution with her selfless and dedicated public service. Her husband Jim is also a friend. He, too, worked in government and shared Yvonne's commitment to the people's business. Yvonne and Jim were an integral part of my office family for 28 years. They touched the lives of so many fellow staffers with their caring ways. They were gardeners who loved to share their beautiful flowers and plants. My wife Barbara joins me today in extending our sympathy to Jim and saluting the life and many good deeds of his beloved Yvonne.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, recent events in the Middle East have led to the evacuation of thousands of U.S. citizens from Lebanon. This evacuation is being conducted by the U.S. State Department. However, the Department of Health and Human Services, or more specifically, the Administration for Children and Families, ACF, is responsible for assisting U.S. citizens upon their return to the United States. Over the past several days, ACF has established repatriation facilities at the Baltimore/Washington airport, the Philadelphia airport, and McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey. More than 5,000 Americans have been offered assistance at these facilities in recent days. Thousands more are expected within the week. These repatriation facilities are staffed by Federal and State employees who provide assistance with travel, lodging, and access to medical facilities, as necessary. These employees are doing a tremendous job assisting all of the evacuees. Unfortunately, under current law, this critical assistance is subject to a statutory cap of $1 million dollars. Given the expected number of evacuees, the statutory cap could be reached at any moment. Unless Congress acts quickly to raise the cap, the ongoing repatriation efforts will be suspended. We must not allow that to happen. The legislation I have offered today, along with my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, will raise the cap to $6 million through the end of this fiscal year. This increase is expected to fully cover the anticipated costs of the evacuation this year, as well as provide for the continued operation of the repatriation program next year. In addition to temporarily raising the cap, this legislation would provide the States with the option to use the National Directory of New Hires to verify eligibility under the Food Stamp Program. This language is similar to the provisions in current law now being used to verify eligibility for the SSI Program and to collect delinquent child support payments. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the utilization of this option in the Food Stamp Program would save roughly $1 million a year, thus offsetting the cost of raising the cap. In contrast to the legislation passed by the House yesterday, this legislation does not sunset the repatriation program. The repatriation program has been in operation, in one form or another, since the 1930s. There is no reason to believe this program should be abolished. Thus, the sunset provision contained in the House bill is merely a gimmick to create the appearance that the bill is paid for when in fact it is not. On another matter, the House language includes a requirement for an IG report on the repatriation program. However, it does not appear such a report is necessary. According to ACF, under the emergency repatriation program each State has an approved plan which they implement when needed. They are allowed to assume costs for all of the activities contained in their approved plan. The States then submit a detailed explanation of how the funds were spent, along with supporting documentation. Finally, it should be noted that the language in the House bill was intended to lift the million-dollar cap for the current fiscal year. But it is not entirely clear it accomplishes that goal. Under current law, the cap is effective for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 2003. Under the House-passed language, the cap is effective for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 2006. Since the current fiscal year occurs after 2003 but before 2006, that begs the question-- what is the cap for this year? The answer to this question should not be ambiguous. The Senate language clearly states the cap for the current fiscal year is $6 million. Given all of these concerns, I urge my colleagues to reject the House language and support the Senate alternative. The Senate alternative will maintain the critical assistance now being provided to evacuees, while at the same time offsetting the cost of this assistance in a reasonable and responsible manner. I urge its adoption.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 86, 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 for 3 years, subject to annual renewal by Congress. Well, the 3 years are about to end, and unfortunately the situation in Burma has not improved. The latest report from the State Department notes the continuation of killings and rape, use of forced labor, forced conscription, arrests and disappearances of political activists, and other abuses by the ruling military junta. And on May 23, 2006, the ruling junta extended for another year the unjustified house arrest of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. To renew trade with Burma now would send exactly the wrong signal. We need to renew the import ban as a visible demonstration to the ruling junta that their actions are unacceptable and that they must change their ways. We also need to encourage other nations to take strong action. The European Union has imposed some sanctions. Canada, Australia, Japan, and Norway also have some restrictions in place. I think they should each join us in doing more. Other nations should be acting as well, in particular, China. I urge the administration to continue engaging our trading partners to join us in strengthening sanctions against the ruling military junta. We need to work together in order to spur meaningful democratic reform in Burma. For these reasons, I support authorizing the import ban for another 3 years, and I support the outright renewal of the import ban for another year. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to join me in supporting passage of H.J. Res. 86 and getting it to the President's desk for his signature as soon as possible.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. Let me first commend everyone who has been involved with getting this bill to where it is today, including the chairman of the Judiciary Committee here in the Senate, Chairman Specter. Chairman Specter has attempted to ensure that everyone involved in this process received the opportunity to explore the issues about which they had further questions, while still moving the bill through expeditiously. Thanks to all these efforts, we will see final passage of the Voting Rights Act reauthorization today, nearly a year ahead of the expiration of any of the temporary provisions. I have long been a supporter of the Voting Rights Act. I had the opportunity to work with Senators Dole and Kennedy and others in 1982 to continue the VRA's vital protections, to ensure that all Americans truly have the right to vote. As I explained during the reauthorization of the VRA in 1982, the right to vote is fundamental. Only through voting can we guarantee preservation of all our other rights. The right to vote is the very cornerstone of democracy and merits the highest protection of law. People of all races have been guaranteed the right to vote since passage of the 15th amendment in 1870. For far too long, though, this was a right only in theory. Many minorities were discriminated against in the days before the Voting Rights Act was introduced. Since this Act was passed, we have seen the voting proportions of these populations increase dramatically. The Voting Rights Act has had very significant success in fighting racial discrimination, probably more than anything else that Congress has done since the adoption of the Civil War amendments. Next year, important provisions of the Voting Rights Act will expire. The right of every American to have a voice and vote is the essence of America's strength and greatness. As was the case in 1982, conditions have improved since the original Voting Rights Act was passed. It is our duty as the ultimate custodians of the public trust, however, to ensure that we never return to a world in which some of our citizens do not truly have the right to vote. For this reason, I stand with Chairman Specter as an original cosponsor of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. Many people, including the bill's authors, members of the Judiciary Committees in both Houses, and thousands of civil rights activists, have worked incredibly hard to see this reauthorization become a reality. I will repeat what I said on this floor 15 years ago: It is our duty to guarantee that all citizens have the same opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. All of us here today recognize that it is our duty, as elected representatives of the people, as guardians of democracy, to protect the right to vote. I remain confident, as I was in 1982, that the Voting Rights Act is a key tool--perhaps the key tool--in eradicating any remaining vestiges of racial discrimination. I support reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act and encourage my colleagues to do the same. As it was in 1965 and in 1982 and for all the other extensions along the way, this vote today is among the most important civil rights votes on the floor of this body. We have the opportunity today to show that we are, indeed, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Please join me in voting aye.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill and am even prouder that we have been able to work across party lines and in both Houses to come up with a bill that we all can support and that will genuinely help protect our children from sexual predators. My commendations and heartfelt sympathy go out to John and Reve Walsh, Mark Lunsford, and all the other parents and loved ones of children who were taken so violently from those who loved them so dearly. Without the tireless efforts of these folks, this bill might not be on the floor here today, as we near the 25-year mark of the disappearance and murder of Adam Walsh. The urgency of passing this legislation is clear. The murders of Jessica Lunsford, Sara Lunde, Tiffany Souers, and Jetseta Gage, who was from my home State of Iowa, have been thoroughly covered in the news in recent times. Each of these murders was committed by a repeat sex offender. These cases should open our eyes to the necessity of passing a bill that will protect children from monsters who commit these crimes and ensure that those who do commit the crimes will receive tougher penalties. As I mentioned, Jetseta Marrie Gage was from my home State of Iowa. I would like to take a moment to talk about the beautiful 10-year-old girl who was sexually assaulted and murdered last year. On March 24, 2005, Jetseta went missing from her home. Within 12 hours of her disappearance, even before a body had been found, law enforcement officials took Roger Bentley into custody. Bentley had been previously convicted for committing lascivious acts with a minor. Unfortunately, this man only served a little over 1 year in prison for his previous sex crime conviction. Two days later, due to a tip received by a woman responding to the Amber Alert, Jetseta's body was found stuffed in a cabinet in an abandoned mobile home. She had been sexually molested and suffocated with a plastic bag. I can't help but wonder whether Jetseta would still be alive today had her killer received stricter penalties for his first offense. It breaks my heart to hear about cases like this, but it is even more disheartening when you know that it might have been prevented with adequate sentencing and that hers is just one tragic story in a long list of horrific crimes committed every year. Child sex offenders are the most heinous of all criminals. I can honestly tell you that I would just as soon lock up all the child molesters and child pornography makers and murderers in this country and throw away the key. As it should all of us, the thought of what these predators do to our innocent children literally makes me sick to my stomach. The thought that we might not do what we could to deter them but also to prevent the same people from committing the same crimes against other children is unacceptable. According to a study funded by the Department of Justice, 5.3 percent of sex offenders were rearrested within 3 years following their release for another sex crime. Also, compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were four times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime. Even more troubling, according to several federally funded studies, child molesters have an even higher rate of rearrest than rapists. Three years ago, we passed the PROTECT Act, a bill I worked on with my colleagues to provide the judiciary with the necessary tools to ensure that our children and grandchildren grow up in a safe community, free from child predators. This bill complements the process we started with the PROTECT Act, and adds much needed additional protections for children and for our communities. The bill before us today includes parts of the Jetseta Gage Prevention and Deterrence of Crimes Against Children Act, a bill that I introduced last year to strengthen penalties for criminals who commit sex offenses against children. It ensures that those who commit heinous crimes against our children are appropriately punished and that anyone thinking of committing similar crimes will think twice about the repercussions. The bill increases penalties for sexual offenses against children, including sexual abuse, murder, kidnapping, sex trafficking, and various activities relating to the production and dissemination of child pornography. This bill goes far beyond these penalty increases, however. It establishes sex offender registration and notification requirements, essential to aid parents in monitoring their children's environments. It strengthens child pornography prevention laws and sets up grants, studies, and other programs for the safety of children and communities. It delves into Internet crimes, an area that is becoming increasingly important in light of the dangers posed to children and the lack of knowledge on the part of parents, which hampers their ability to protect their children. My good friend from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, introduced the bill this section is based on and which I cosponsored. As the elected representatives of the American people, our foremost duty is to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Child rapes and murders are now being reported on our news programs on a regular basis. We have the power to prevent so many of these crimes by creating stronger deterrents and letting parents know where these sex offenders lurk after they are released. When crimes are committed, the least we can do is ensure that the rapists and murderers won't get the opportunity to hurt another child. It is a tragedy that it took so many stories like those of Adam Walsh, Jetseta Gage, and Jessica Lunsford for a law of this nature to be proposed. I strongly believe that a vote for this bill can save the lives of children in the future. We have an obligation as legislators to protect our citizenry. We have an obligation as adults to protect our youth. We have an obligation as parents to protect our children. I urge my colleagues to join me in doing just that by voting in favor of this bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I appreciate very much the opportunity to discuss the issue of the Water Resources Development Act and particularly that part of the act that deals with the improvement of transportation on the Mississippi River because that improvement is very essential not only to the economy of Iowa but to the economy of the whole Midwest, and in turn that relates to the economy of the United States. Most importantly, it affects the economy--meaning the economic competitiveness of our industry and agriculture, and primarily agriculture with competition around the world, and particularly that, as I see it, of Brazil. Brazil is becoming very much a competitor with the Midwest of the United States in the production of a lot of grains, particularly soybeans. I owe a thank you, particularly to Senators Bond and Inhofe, for their strong leadership in moving this legislation forward. This used to happen every 2 years, a bill called the Water Resources Development Act. But we have not dealt with this issue since the year 2000. This bill is not only long overdue, but it is a very important bill. Not only does the bill which is before us include many updates in existing authorized projects, but it also authorizes new projects throughout the country. Several examples of these much-needed projects beyond the ones I am going to emphasize are the coastal wetland restorations, but the one I want to emphasize the improvement of is the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. Coastal wetland restoration will help protect our inland waterways. We think, maybe too often, of that as being an environmental issue, but it is also about protecting our inland waterways, making sure that there is a multiple use of the rivers, recreation, food, as well as commerce. In the process of the wetland restoration protecting our offshore energy supply, we provide much-needed flood protection in the gulf coast region. But for my State and the Midwest generally, the Upper Mississippi and Illinois River navigation and ecosystem investments are also very vital because of the multipurpose use of the river. Of course, Iowa is bounded on the east side by the Mississippi River for the entire north and west distance of our State. And Iowa, as well as the Nation, relies on the river to move both goods that are domestically oriented and distributed as well as goods that are internationally distributed. The United States enjoys a comparative advantage in corn production worldwide. My State is also the No. 1 producer of corn, and usually we are also the No. 1 producer of soybeans. In regard to corn production, the per-ton cost of transporting corn in the United States is lower than any other country. But our country must not allow its transportation infrastructure to continue to deteriorate. Quite frankly, that is what this legislation is all about. Because of deterioration, it needs to be enhanced, it needs to be improved, and it needs to be kept up to date. Our international competitors are making major investments in their transportation systems. In Brazil, surface transportation--meaning railroads and highways, primarily highways--is very much inferior to ours. In March, I took a trip to Brazil. I can tell you that when we were out in the countryside, what we would call rural Brazil, we ran into more potholes than you could count, something that farmers of Iowa would not anticipate or tolerate from our local officials. You wonder how local officials get reelected because they are not going to be reelected because of filling potholes. But Brazil, on the other hand, as far as their river transportation, brings into question the competitive advantage the United States might have that we could be losing. Brazil has made significant investments in its river infrastructure. They do not have to have locks and dams, such as we do on the Mississippi, in the case of the Amazon. I saw facilities on my trip to Brazil on the Amazon that we could be very jealous of, the opportunity to bring commercial seagoing ships up the Amazon to load in Brazil on the Amazon and coming in this far with very major terminals for loading primarily soybeans, but also they can go up the river as well. There is a new facility being built at this point. I believe these ships go even further up. But at least I wanted to be sure of here and here that it is possible to load those ships at that point. They don't have to use barges as we do from Iowa to New Orleans to load. This would be the equivalent of our being able to take oceangoing ships up to Memphis to load for soybeans. You can understand then that we have this lock and dam situation that makes it possible for us to use the Mississippi River for major transportation. Keeping that up to date is very important if we are going to be economically competitive with how they can move their agricultural products--primarily soybeans--out of Brazil into the world trade. What they don't have that we have is very good roads, although they are improving them. They don't have the railroad system we have in the United States that makes it possible for us to get our grain very easily to the Mississippi River or using railroads to get it down to the gulf. But they are working on that. Right now we are competitive because they do not have that land infrastructure we have. When they get that, we will have a hard time competing. That brings up the point of this legislation and getting it passed, to make sure our Mississippi infrastructure is up to date. We must invest in major improvements in all of our transportation infrastructure. If we don't make these investments in our roads, our rails and water, the U.S. agricultural industry and labor will pay the price. Last year we did a lot to help with surface transportation, primarily referred to as the highway bill, although maybe not entirely highways. We provided $295 billion for road, transit, and rail improvements in that bill we passed last year. These funds will help facilitate the movement of our goods. The surface transportation bill will help alleviate congestion so our trucks can move more efficiently. It also provides additional loan authority and tax credit to help railroads invest in much-needed capital improvements and to help meet the large demands for their services. According to the Congressional Research Service, last year U.S. exports of goods and services totaled $1.275 trillion compared to $1.115 trillion in 2004 and $1.023 trillion in the year 2003. You can see very much an enhancement in value of our exports from the United States according to the Congressional Research Service. Of course, our consumers and our manufacturers, and to some extent food supply, rely upon importing goods into the United States. But whether it is exports or imports, whether it is consumers or input into manufacturing and agriculture, many of these goods travel on our inland waterways. Again, emphasizing the need to get this legislation passed, because it is also forecast to beat our exports and imports are going to continue to grow in the future, we must be able to efficiently and economically move these goods. When I get more parochial in my economic observance of the need of this legislation, it is because nearly two-thirds of all grain as well as soybean exports are moved through the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. According to one study, unless the Army Corps of Engineers modernizes, which means Congress giving them the ability to do it, unless we modernize the lock and dam system on the Upper Mississippi and the Illinois Rivers, the cost of transporting just one commodity, corn, to the export market would rise by 17 cents per bushel. As a result, corn and soybean exports would decline by 68 million and 10 million bushels per year, respectively, and the decline in corn and soybean exports would reduce farm income by $246 million. This highlights how important barge transportation is to the farmers but in turn to the economy generally. In addition, there are many environmental benefits to river transportation. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, towboats might have 35 to 60 percent fewer pollutants than either train locomotives or our big semitrucks in transporting anything, but particularly in regard to what I am talking about, the necessity of moving grain. A color chart used by the Senator from Missouri shows the same thing. I have a black-and-white chart. The information is the same, but it is cheaper to make white charts than it is colored charts. It shows one barge can move what 15 jumbo hopper cars of railroads can move or what 58 large semis can move. Not only is that an environmental issue, that is an issue of economy of moving a product. Most importantly, when you are waiting for a long train at a crossing, think in terms of fewer hopper cars because of what one barge can move. Of all of the trucks you meet on the interstate or the two-lane highways of the Midwest, think how many more there would be if we did not have transportation to the gulf by barge. If you have 15 of these barges being pushed by one motor, you would have 2.25 miles of train, 180 cars or, in this case, 870 large semis. I hope everyone can see that moving a lot of merchandise to export on the Mississippi River is taking an awful lot of pressure off the highways, an awful lot of pressure off of the railroads. It is environmentally sound in the process. The Army Corps of Engineers data suggests that the Nation currently saves $100 to $300 million in air pollution abatement when moving bulk commodities by barge through the Mississippi River system. In these times of high fuel prices and with the need to conserve energy, one gallon of fuel in a towboat can carry one ton of freight 2.5 times further than rail and nine times further than trucks. Quoting the Minnesota Department of Transportation estimate, shifting from barge to rail results in fuel usage emissions and probable accident increases by the following percentages: 331-percent fuel usage; 470 percent less emissions; and 290 percent less probable accidents. Shifting traffic from barge to trucks increases fuel use 826 percent, emissions 709 percent, and probable accidents by 5.967 percent. In addition, another 1,333 heavy trucks would be added to our already congested roads. For these above reasons, we have this legislation before the Senate. Several of my Senate colleagues for many years have been seeking authorization for this lock and dam modernization as well as enhanced environmental restoration of the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. To get that done, we have to get this bill to the President for his signature. I am very pleased the Committee on Environment and Public Works included these important initiatives in this Water Resources Development Act and that a truly bipartisan group of Senators is advocating for this important modernization. If anyone believes it is always Republicans attacking Democrats and Democrats attacking Republicans, this is an ideal initiative that shows how widespread bipartisan support and cooperation can be in this Senate when there is a national emergency. That national emergency is environmental, the national emergency is for our economy to be competitive, the national emergency is safety on our highways, to relieve glut on our railroads. It is all around. This is a bipartisan effort to cooperate for the good of this Nation because this lock-and-dam system of the Upper Mississippi River was built in the late 1930s, I suppose over a period of a few decades. But many lock chambers are only 600 feet long and cannot accommodate the barges we are talking about used in the modern day to get things into the international market. These structures require a modernization because there is a tow configuration that needs a double lock to pass. This adds to mounting delay time when we do not have the modernization. It amounts to increased costs to the shippers, increased harm to our environment with higher emissions and higher sediment suspensions in the river channel, the loss of jobs when we are not competitive, and lower wages when we are not competitive. Increased traffic levels without these improvements will result in gross farm revenue loss of over $105 million per year. This does not take into account the huge cost of increased highway and rail transportation. We realize the authorization of the lock-and-dam improvements is a first step in a lengthy process, but it is a necessary step and one that a bipartisan group of Senators, an increasing number of Senators in a bipartisan way, has been working on for a few years. It is an important and necessary project for our Nation. I urge my colleagues to vote for this balanced legislation, not to vote for any amendments that are going to dilute it or harm it in any way. When we get this number of Senators working together in a bipartisan fashion, this ought to be a test of something that is needed, a test of something that is good, something to move forward on. It is balanced legislation and, of course, it is good for the country.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to announce that I am introducing a bill that will extend whistleblower protections currently available to certain executive branch employees to legislative branch employees. This bill is long overdue. The Office of Compliance has called for these changes on numerous occasions in recent years, and they are very supportive of this bill. I have fought for whistleblowers for many years. Whistleblowers are the key to exposing a dysfunctional bureaucracy. Government agencies too often want to cover up their mistakes. Without insiders being brave enough to uncover these violations or waste, the American taxpayer would continue to pay for them. These people should not be punished for bringing the misdeeds to light. Whistleblowers in the executive branch have helped me do my job of oversight. We have done a good job to make sure that whistleblowers in the executive branch are protected. It is simply not fair, nor is it good governance for Congress to enact whistleblower protections on the other branches of Government without giving its own employees the same consideration. This bill merely extends those same protections that other Government employees enjoy to Congress's own employees. I fully back hard-working Government employees who serve to protect our country, and I hope my colleagues will join me. Congress needs to make sure that its own employees can speak up without retaliation when they blow the whistle on fraud, waste, or abuse. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to announce that I am introducing a bill that will extend whistleblower protections currently available to certain executive branch employees to legislative branch employees. This bill is long overdue. The Office of Compliance has called for these changes on numerous occasions in recent years, and they are very supportive of this bill. I have fought for whistleblowers for many years. Whistleblowers are the key to exposing a dysfunctional bureaucracy. Government agencies too often want to cover up their mistakes. Without insiders being brave enough to uncover these violations or waste, the American taxpayer would continue to pay for them. These people should not be punished for bringing the misdeeds to light. Whistleblowers in the executive branch have helped me do my job of oversight. We have done a good job to make sure that whistleblowers in the executive branch are protected. It is simply not fair, nor is it good governance for Congress to enact whistleblower protections on the other branches of Government without giving its own employees the same consideration. This bill merely extends those same protections that other Government employees enjoy to Congress's own employees. I fully back hard-working Government employees who serve to protect our country, and I hope my colleagues will join me. Congress needs to make sure that its own employees can speak up without retaliation when they blow the whistle on fraud, waste, or abuse. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, as everybody is doing, I want to discuss the three stem-cell-research-related bills before the Senate. I have been in the Senate for 26 years now. Every day, we make decisions that impact Americans. It becomes difficult, however, when we debate bills that involve the lives of women and families, especially those who are sick and dying. We must be cognizant of their plights, but we cannot forget about those who don't have a voice. Tomorrow, I will vote in favor of those who are not yet brought into this world. I will vote for those who don't have a chance to speak against legislation that doesn't give them a chance at life. First, I intend to support S. 3504, the ban on fetus farming. This bill states that a person cannot solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of fetal tissue or an embryo if the pregnancy was initiated to provide such material. This bill will reduce the likelihood that women will be used solely for their production of embryos. We have to draw the line, and we have to prevent the corruption that could occur. Second, I intend to support a bill numbered S. 2754, which directs the National Institutes of Health to fund alternative techniques for stem cell research. It will allow researchers to use different techniques to derive pluripotent stem cells without destroying human life. This research could be done under current law, but a vote in support of this bill will send a signal to the NIH that we want to see even more of this research. Finally, I will oppose H.R. 810 because it would expand Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Some of my colleagues will characterize the bill, H.R. 810, as a lifesaving opportunity for many people with diseases. The focus will be on promises, hopes, and dreams. This focus disregards that this bill will allow researchers to use and abuse embryos. And there are enormous moral and ethical consequences associated with that research. You cannot mess with the facts. An embryo is life. No Senator can disagree with that assertion. Once you realize that fact--that an embryo is life--you have to realize that this bill takes life and plays with it. In addition, this bill doesn't prohibit cloning. In fact, it will make cloning even more attractive. Why would we want to go down this road of unethical research when we have a method that already works? We all know that adult stem cell research has proven effective. We are investing the taxpayers' money in research that benefits the American people. We in Congress have to realize that there is a difference between hope and hype. I, for one, will not be misled. Adult stem cells have already proven effective for over 72 treatments. I will not list them all, but some of them relate to adult stem cells being used to treat brain tumors, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, and Parkinson's disease. Peripheral blood stem cells have treated testicular cancer, lymphoma, and breast cancer. Cord blood stem cells have treated leukemia. Olfactory stem cells from the nose can develop into heart cells, liver cells, kidney cells, muscle cells, brain cells, and nerve cells. Bone marrow stem cells and stem cells from fat have the ability to differentiate and form other body tissues. I wish I could list the advances with embryonic stem cell research, but I cannot; there are none. There are no treatments for human patients. So there is no evidence on which to argue that this research should be expanded with public resources. I have a story about a person that I have known for 44 years, David Foege. I have known him since he was a page at the Iowa State Legislature back in 1962. He is originally from Waverly, IA, so even though he lives in Florida, I still consider him a constituent. There is evidence, then, through Dave Foege that we should continue supporting adult stem cell research. Just 2 weeks ago, I had an opportunity to meet with David, who is now 61 years old and living in Florida. This is the story he told to me. David was given a life sentence because of heart failure. Three years ago, David was told that he had little chance of surviving. His heart was losing all function and there was little that doctors could do. David then turned to stem cell therapy. He found doctors in Bangkok that would harvest his own stem cells and then inject them back into his own heart. His own stem cells--his adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells--cured him. His heart function has improved by 70 percent. David is alive and well, playing golf, and currently taking a cruise in Belize. Without adult stem cell therapy, David would not be here. Embryonic stem cell research, on the contrary, has not yielded this kind of success that we have from adult stem cells. It makes sense to direct public resources to what works. Prioritizing resources: It makes sense for public resources to help those with heart disease, the No. 1 killer in the United States. It makes sense to encourage research that will work for those with Parkinson's, diabetes, cancer, and autoimmune diseases. Why would we want to desert patients in the United States by spending dollars on research that has not been proven? I will oppose H.R. 810 not only because of the ethical consequences but because it doesn't prioritize our use of fiscal resources. Let's be clear. There is no current policy in place that bans embryonic stem cell research. Everybody knows that we are doing some through the Federal Government because, being perfectly legal in the United States, President Bush, in 2001, allowed taxpayer dollars to be used for that research. This debate in the Senate today and tomorrow is not whether we want to ban or allow research, it is whether we want to spend our dollars on embryo creation and destruction. Today, the Congress appropriates nearly $30 billion for medical research through the National Institutes of Health. Every year, hundreds of advocates come to my office to say that $30 billion is not enough. They say these funds are important to continue research and trials that are already started. So what would happen to those arguments if there was a higher priority placed through passage of H.R. 810? Will we have to double the budget again for NIH like we did between 1998 and 2003? I don't think that is possible given that was already done starting in the year 1998. So it makes me wonder whether we are prioritizing the use of Federal research dollars through the National Institutes of Health the way we should. We don't have an infinite amount of Federal funding. We cannot pretend there is enough money to go around. We do have to prioritize. So I urge my colleagues to realize that Congress can only disburse so many funds. We can only fix so many problems. Therefore, we need to think rationally. We need to make tough choices. One of those tough choices might be to pursue what is proven to work, which is greater use of adult stem cells. The right choice, then, is to invest in what works. Let's keep the ball rolling with research that has been proven. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wanted to take a moment to note my vote for the amendment offered to H.R. 5441 by Senator Vitter. Senator Vitter's amendment would prohibit the U.S. Customs and Border Protection from using funds to prevent individuals from importing a prescription drug from Canada that complies with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, FDCA. The strong support demonstrated today for Senator Vitter's amendment reemphasizes the importance of the issue of allowing Americans to import prescription drugs. I have long advocated allowing American consumers access to safe drugs from other countries. In 2000, 2002 and 2003 I supported amendments permitting reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada. In 2004, Senator Kennedy and I offered bipartisan legislation to authorize reimportation. And, last year, I introduced a reimportation bill with Senators Snowe, Kennedy, Dorgan and others. Our bill, S. 334, the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act, permits the importation of prescription drugs and includes very important safeguards to help ensure that those drugs are safe and obtained from legitimate pharmacies. I look forward to continuing to pursue Senate passage of our comprehensive, bipartisan bill. Allowing importation will increase competition and keep the domestic pharmaceutical industry more responsive to consumers. Senate approval of the Vitter amendment represents another development in an ongoing effort to help reduce the cost of life-saving drugs for American consumers. We need to do more to foster competition by allowing imported medicine and to make sure that those prescription drugs are safe. S.334 should be the next step on this issue.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor one of our Nation's most courageous men, who fell while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. CPL Jeremy S. Jones gave his life on June 27, 2006 when an improvised explosive detonated while he was on patrol. Corporal Jones was a member of D company, 1st battalion, 67th Armored Regiment, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, TX. He was 25 years old. My thoughts and prayers are with the Jones family, his father, Scott; his mother, Diane; his wife, Jennifer; and his two young children, Mackenzie and Anthony. Also, my deepest sympathies go out to Jeremy's friends, to the men and women of the 4th infantry, and to all who knew him. Jeremy was a soldier, a patriot, and a father. Jeremy did not die in vain but gave his life defending freedom and protecting all of us back home. He is truly an American hero. Corporal Jones' sacrifice and the sacrifice of so many others will be remembered by all freedom-loving Americans.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume on the Oman Free Trade Agreement.