Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to comment on what the Senator from Massachusetts said. First of all, I think everything he said about the AMT, I agree with; what he said about the capital gains, I disagree with. I am only going to comment on that part that I agree with him on about the AMT. But let us have a little history in the process of doing that. No. 1, either in 1998 or 1999, we repealed the AMT. President Clinton vetoed it. So we wouldn't be dealing with this issue if President Clinton had signed that bill. In a sense I am kind of asking for support from anybody on the other side of the aisle who thinks we are not doing enough on AMT. I happen to be one of those who even today, 6 to 7 years later, is for repeal. I believe it ought to be repealed. We ought to have a standup vote, without any points of order, and get rid of this. There are Republicans who would say if we do that in the out years, our budget might look like it has a much bigger deficit than it has, and over here there might be people who say if you are going to get rid of this tax, you ought to have an offset for it, so the budget deficit does not look different. The reason neither one of those concerns is legitimate is because in this bill we are talking about having the AMT hit the middle-class Americans whom it was not intended to hit. The Senator from Massachusetts is right in the sense that for parents with children and the larger the family the more it hits them. It was never intended to hit but a few wealthy people who used every legal loophole to avoid paying taxes and that somehow everyone who makes a lot of money ought to pay a little something of income tax into the Federal Treasury. A little something or big something, whatever the case might be, whatever the alternative minimum tax hit them with, they ought to pay that. If Senator Baucus will bear with me, he has heard me say 150 times how ridiculous it is to have this side of the aisle say we ought to offset a tax that was never intended to be collected in the first place from the people who otherwise will be hit with it if we did not pass this legislation, and over here, people are worried if we do away with it, the budget deficit will look bigger because we do not have the phantom tax income coming in from people who were never supposed to pay the alternative minimum tax in the first place. If we have a tax hitting people who were never intended to pay it in the first place, it should not be showing up in the budget figures, anyway. So we have to worry about an offset or we have to worry about whether we have a burgeoning budget deficit over here if it is not there. It is a phantom. We ought to do what you do with phantoms, hit them with a needle, let the air out, get rid of them. Also, particularly what the Senator from Massachusetts said about hitting people, it is like a geographical tax to some extent because a lot of States, such as New York, New Jersey, and California, have a lot of high-income people. Therefore, they have a disproportionate number of people getting hit by the AMT. If you fall into that income class, you will get hit with it. More of these people live in higher income States and it happens that some of the States are what we call blue States instead of red States, so I don't know why we do not have a massive drive on this side to force Republicans to do something that is hurting your constituents. Let's do away with the darned tax. People aren't supposed to be paying it in the first place. Why are we spending a lot of time working the issue? I would like to have the Senator from Massachusetts solve this problem forever and help us repeal it, like we did in 1998, with a President who I am sure will sign it. On a procedural matter, I wish also to make a comment. My good friend from Montana asked if we could see what we could work on, on amendments. I will briefly comment even beyond what he has asked us to do and try to help speed this along as best I can, as to where we are. It has been suggested on this side that Republicans work with Members to help them get their amendments up and voted on. First, we should not even be in this situation, a truly unprecedented situation, where we are essentially being forced to do a reconciliation bill over. Yes, we are doing a reconciliation bill over, within 2 months of when we first did it. We could be doing the Nation's business of problems that have to be solved, not waste 3 days on this bill now when we spent 3 days on it in November. We could be working on lobbyist reform. We could be working on asbestos reform and a lot of other things that Members want before the Senate. However, leadership on the other side is wasting the Senate's time and the American people's time. Surely there is a better way. For those who thought this was over back in November, we are in the middle of a rude awakening. Cooperation is a two-way street. Even though we should not be in this position where the minority party is trying to reopen the bill, we have said we are willing to entertain a limited number of amendments. Another way to put this, I said to Senator Baucus privately that we need total transparency on this, get everything on the table. We do not get a response from the Democratic leadership. They have taught me a few lessons from our first go-around on this bill. I learned that you do not vote on amendments too early because we know what happens if you do that; they get their press release out, they lose the amendment, then it comes back within a matter of hours, sometimes two or three different versions of the very same amendment. We end up voting on all of them, wasting everyone's time. So the extent to which we lay everything on the table and level with everyone on what we are faced with, we will be able to get this bill completed. We could finish this late tomorrow night. Unless we can get an agreement for a limited number of amendments or amendments in total, I don't see any reason but to wait until the time has expired on the bill and let the so-called vote-arama begin one vote right after another and we spend a couple of minutes debating an amendment back and forth, to have that vote-arama without an agreement. I am convinced this will save the Senate a lot of time in the end. Either way, we have a limited number of amendments. Let us know what they are, have some sort of agreement so we can get done, or have a vote-arama. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy in sponsoring a resolution designating the month of January as ``National Mentoring Month.'' Adult-to-youth mentoring has long shown positive impacts on our Nation's young people in becoming responsible, productive adults. This January will mark the fourth anniversary of the National Mentoring Month campaign to focus national attention on the need for mentors, as well as how each of us within the public and private sector can work together to increase the number of mentors and assure brighter futures for our youth. Currently, it is estimated that 15 million children need or want a mentor. That is 15 million young people who need the guidance to improve life-essential skills, make healthy choices, and increase their own self worth. I hope the rest of the Senate will join in supporting this resolution and supporting this very important campaign.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Today, I wish to honor an heroric Iowan who has given the ultimate sacrifice for his country in Operation Iraqi Freedom. SGT Nathan R. Field died January 7, 2006, in Umm Qasr, Iraq due to injuries sustained when his Humvee was hit by a civilian vehicle. Sgt. Field was assigned to the 4249th Port Security Company, U.S. Army Reserve out of Pocahontas, IA, but was temporarily assigned with the 414th Military Police of Joplin, MO. I want to extend my condolences to his parents Bill and Mary, his brother Eli, his fiancee Connie, and his many family members and friends. Sergeant Field graduated from South East Webster High School in 2000 where he was a member of the student council, senior class president, captain of the wrestling team, and was a three year member of the football team and manager of the football team his senior year. SGT Field enlisted in the Army Reserve while still in high school and after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. His unit was called to active duty where he accompanied ships to Belgium, France and Germany. In September of 2005, he volunteered for duty in Iraq, something that he felt compelled to do for the freedom of our country. Nathan Field will be remembered for his loyalty to friends and for his love of life. As his father said, ``If Nathan liked you, there wasn't anything he wouldn't do for you.'' I call on my colleagues in the Senate and every American to pay tribute to this brave American and to give thanks to this courageous soldier who gave the ultimate sacrifice in defending our freedom.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Thank you. Mr. President, I support the nomination of Samuel Alito. President Bush has made a very excellent choice in picking Alito. He has the intellect, judicial temperament, and integrity to be an excellent Justice. He seems to have a very clear understanding of the proper role of the judiciary in our government. That came out very clearly in the hearings. He commands the respect of his colleagues on the Third Circuit, as their testimony before our committee demonstrated. He also has the respect of the lawyers who practice before him and the employees who have worked with him. That was demonstrated in testimony before our committee as well. But we can't always accurately predict how an individual ultimately will make decisions once he or she gets on the bench. But we do have a constitutional process in place, and we have to use our judgment within that process and trust the confirmation process. I would say the 225-year history of our country succeeding as it has is an affirmation that the process has worked well. We have confirmed many outstanding individuals to the Supreme Court, and the process has worked well thus far and will continue to work well with Judge Alito. Judge Alito was very impressive in the hearings. He did an excellent job under a great deal of fire. He was thorough, he was candid, and he was forthright with all 18 of us on the committee, and demonstrated a deep understanding of the law and a deep understanding of the law and our Constitution. Contrary to the claims of some of my colleagues from whom we have been hearing this morning and yesterday, Judge Alito's testimony was very substantive, and he was responsive. Let me quantify that. Judge Alito answered more than 650 questions during nearly 18 hours of testimony. Compared to the performances of Justice Ginsburg who answered 307 questions at her hearing, and Justice Breyer, who answered 291 questions, one can hardly swallow what we hear on the other side--that Judge Alito was not forthcoming with the Committee. I easily conclude, as I think the public concludes, that he has been one of the most forthcoming nominees to come before the Judiciary committee. The Constitution provides the President with the power to nominate Supreme Court Justices. And it provides the Senate with advise and consent duties, presumably ending up in an up-or-down vote. In Federalist No. 66, Alexander Hamilton wrote: It will be the office of the President to nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint. There will, of course, be no exertion of choice on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves choose--they can only ratify or reject the choice he may have made. That is Alexander Hamilton commenting on the role of the President and the Senate in the judicial confirmation process. I have been on the Judiciary Committee for more than 25 years. I take this constitutional responsibility very seriously. Our work in committee allows us to evaluate whether a nominee has the requisite judicial temperament, intellect, and integrity. We also evaluate throughout that process whether the nominee understands the proper role of a Justice in our democratic system of government; mainly, but not limited to, respect for the rule of law and respect for the Constitution, all over any personal agenda the nominee might have. A Justice, to do justice, cannot have a personal agenda. Specifically, a Supreme Court nominee should clearly understand that the role of a judge under the Constitution is a limited role, to say what the law is, rather than make the law. I quote Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 78: The courts must declare the sense of the law, and if they should be disposed to exercise will instead of judgment, the consequences would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. In fact, most Americans want judges who will confine their job to interpreting the law and the Constitution, rather than making policy and societal choices from the bench. But what we have seen lately is a trend where the courts have expanded the role of the judiciary far beyond what was originally intended in the Constitution and by the Framers. The courts have taken on a role that is much more akin to what we do in Congress, the legislative branch, making law, which is to make policy choices and to craft laws based on those choices. As a consequence of this power grab by the courts, the judicial confirmation process also, unfortunately, has become extremely politicized. That is because when judges improperly assume the role of deciding essentially political questions rather than legal questions, the judicial confirmation process also devolves into one focused less on whether a nominee can impartially and appropriately implement the law. Instead, the process devolves into one focused on whether a nominee will implement a desired political outcome from the bench, regardless of what the law says, regardless of what the Constitution requires. But Judge Alito understands the proper role of a judge. Judge Alito understands the judicial branch plays a limited role in our system of government--but not surprisingly so because that is what the Constitution intended. Judge Alito testified: The judiciary has to protect rights, and it should be vigorous in doing that, and it should be vigorous in enforcing the law and interpreting the law . . . in accordance with what it really means and enforcing the laws even if that's unpopular. He continues: But although the judiciary has a very important role to play, it is a limited role. . . . It should always be asking itself whether it is straying over the bounds, where it is invading the authority of the legislature, for example, and whether it is making policy judgments rather than interpreting the law. And that has to be a constant process of re-examination on the part of the judges. Judge Alito's record is clear that he will not make law, but rather he will strictly interpret the law we write. His record is clear that he will do his very best to remain faithful to the actual meaning of the Constitution, rather than mold it into what he would like that Constitution to say. Judge Alito said, along that line: Judges do not have the authority to change the Constitution. The whole theory of judicial review we have, I think, is contrary to that notion. The Constitution is an enduring document and the Constitution does not change. It does contain some important general principles that have to be applied to new factual situations that come up. But in doing that, the judiciary has to be very careful not to inject its own views into the matter. It has to apply the principles that are in the Constitution to the situations that come before the judiciary. Judge Alito possesses a knowledge of and respect for the Constitution that is necessary for all Supreme Court Justices. Judge Alito, in his testimony, demonstrates an understanding of the proper role of a Justice. He understands and respects the separate functions of the judicial branch as opposed to the functions of the legislative branch and the executive branch, the political branches of government. Judge Alito explained that a judge's role is not one of an advocate. He testified: The role of a practicing attorney is to achieve a desired result for the client in a particular case at hand, but a judge cannot think that way. A judge can't have any agenda. A judge can't have any preferred outcome in a particular case. And a judge certainly does not have a client. The judge's only obligation, and it's a solemn obligation, is to the rule of law, and what that means is that in every single case, the judge has to do what the law requires. For all of his opponents, when we hear things such as that and they fit in with what the Constitution's writers intended for the judiciary to do, how can we find fault with Judge Alito's approach? Why would we fear him at all? Judge Alito also believes in justice for all, as afforded by the laws and the Constitution of our great nation. He told the 18 members of the Judiciary Commitee: No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law, and no person in this country is beneath the law. He said: Our Constitution applies in times of peace and in times of war, and it protects the rights of Americans under all circumstances. Another very important position Judge Alito takes: Results-oriented jurisprudence is never justified because it is not our job to try to produce particular results. We are not policy makers and we shouldn't be implementing any sort of policy agenda or policy preference that we have. Contrary to the claims of his opponents, Judge Alito understands the Judiciary has an important role in our system of checks and balances. He understands the importance of the independence of the judicial branch. Judge Alito will not shirk from that responsibility and he will see that the Judiciary is an effective check on abuses of power, both by the executive and the legislative branches of government. In fact, as Judge Aldisert, who served with Judge Alito on the Third Circuit testified: Judicial independence is simply incompatible with political loyalties, and Judge Alito's judicial record on our court bears witness to this fundamental truth. Let me quote former Judge Gibbons, who also served with Judge Alito and who now is litigating with the Bush administration over the treatment of detainees held at Guantanamo. He believes Judge Alito will not shy away from checking Government abuses. He does not believe Judge Alito will rubberstamp any administration's policies if they run counter to the law and the Constitution. And he certainly did not have any concern about Judge Alito's judicial independence. Judge Gibbons testified: It seems not unlikely that one or more of the detainee cases that we are handling will be before the Supreme Court again. I do not know the views of Judge Alito respecting the issues that may be presented in those cases. . . . I'm confident, however, that as an able legal scholar and a fairminded justice, he will give arguments, legal and factual, that may be presented on behalf of our clients careful and thoughtful consideration, without any predisposition in favor of the position of the executive branch. I agree. I believe Judge Alito will be that independent judge who will apply the law and the Constitution, not just to Congress, but to every branch of government, and every person, because Judge Alito knows no one, including the President, is above the law. Not only is Judge Alito an intelligent and experienced jurist, he is also an openminded and fair judge. I am telling everyone that, but anyone that saw the hearing knows that, from the 18 hours he testified before the Judiciary Committee 2 weeks ago. He is an openminded and fair judge. He told the committee: Good judges develop certain habits of mind. One . . . is the habit of delaying reaching conclusions until everything has been considered. Good judges are always open to the possibility of changing their minds based on the next brief that they read or the next argument that is made by an attorney who is appearing before them, or a comment that is made by a colleague when the judges privately discuss the case. How much more appropriate is that approach to the law than just yesterday the Supreme Court decided to hear an execution case of a person in Florida when they got the decision made and the word down as they were strapping him in to inject the lethal chemical into him: Wait, don't make a decision until all the facts are in. So that person did not die last night. In fact, Judge Alito acknowledged he has changed his opinion in the middle of the judicial process because he is waiting for all the facts, those motions, those debates, to be done before he finally concludes. He testified: There have been numerous cases in which I've . . . been given the job of writing an opinion . . . and in the process of writing the opinion, I see that the position that I had previously was wrong. I changed my mind. And then I will write to the other members of the panel and I will say, I have thought this through and this is what I discovered and now I think we should do the opposite of what we agreed, and sometimes they'll agree with me and sometimes they won't. Now, what do you hear from the people opposed to Judge Alito? His critics have tried to paint him out to be an extremist. An activist judge with some agenda hostile to individual rights and to what his critics have called the ``average American.'' We were presented with analyses on how outside the mainstream Judge Alito's opinions were. But that is not what we heard from the American Bar Association. This group of men and women unanimously voted to award Judge Alito its highest possible rating: ``well qualified.'' We have heard from the Democrats that this ABA rating is the ``gold standard'' about how to make any judgment about who is qualified to serve on the judiciary. But that is also not what we heard from the panel of four sitting and two former Third Circuit judges who have worked with Judge Alito for more than 15 years. They did not think Judge Alito was out of the mainstream, as certain people on the floor are trying to claim, or an extremist, as you have heard often argued by the other side. We heard quite to the contrary. I have to say the committee received absolutely extraordinary testimony from these appellate judges, which included nominees from-- just think, these different Presidents nominated these people who testified before us, who said Judge Alito will make a great Justice-- President Lyndon Johnson, President Richard Nixon, President Ronald Reagan, President George H.W. Bush, and President Bill Clinton, these Presidents appointed the people who came to us and said Samuel Alito will make a good Justice. There is disagreement on the floor of the Senate as to whether he will be a good Justice. These are individuals we have heard from who have had the opportunity to witness the interworkings of Samuel Alito as a judge during their private conferences, on a daily basis, behind closed doors, when all the hair is let down. They saw his deliberative process. They know the ``real deal'' Sam Alito. And these witnesses-- all respected and accomplished judges in their own right--each of them only had glowing comments about Judge Alito. Their support was unqualified. As Judge Aldisert told the committee: We who have heard his probing questions during oral argument, we who have been privy to his wise and insightful comments in our private decisional conferences, we who have observed at first hand his impartial approach to decision- making and his thoughtful judicial temperament and know his carefully crafted opinions, we who are his colleagues are convinced that he will also be a great justice. Let's go to Judge Becker: The Sam Alito that I have sat with for 15 years is not an ideologue. He's not a movement person. He's a real judge deciding each case on the facts and the law, not on his personal views, whatever they may be. He scrupulously adheres to precedent. Judge Becker said: I have never seen him exhibit a bias against any class of litigation or litigants. . . .His credo has always been fairness. Chief Judge Scirica said: Despite his extraordinary talents and accomplishments, Judge Alito is modest and unassuming. His thoughtful and inquiring mind, so evident in his opinions, is equally evident in his personal relationships. He is concerned and interested in the lives of those around him. He has an impeccable work ethic, but he takes the time to be a thoughtful friend to his colleagues. He treats everyone on our court, and everyone on our court staff, with respect, with dignity, and with compassion. He is committed to his country and his profession. But he is equally committed to his family, his friends, and his community. He is an admirable judge and an admirable person. Judge Barry said: Samuel Alito set a standard of excellence that was contagious--his commitment to doing the right thing, never playing fast and loose with the record, never taking a shortcut, his emphasis on first-rate work, his fundamental decency. So contrary to what his misguided critics have alleged, Judge Alito is fair and open-minded, and will approach cases without any bias and without a personal agenda. Unfortunately, Judge Alito's record--as you have heard for the last 2 days and as you heard 2 weeks ago in the hearing--has been wildly distorted. Contrary to these critics' claims, Judge Alito has ruled for plaintiffs as well as defendants in civil rights, ADA, and employment discrimination cases. I think a statistical analysis of how many times a certain kind of plaintiff wins or loses is not the best way to judge a judge's record. It is wrong to think there should be a scorecard on how often plaintiffs or defendants should win, like some basketball game. Who should win depends upon the facts presented in the case and what the law says, just as it should be in a country based on the rule of law. What is important to Judge Alito is that he rules on the specific facts in the case and the issue before his court, in accordance with the law and the Constitution. Judge Alito does not have a predisposed outcome in a case. He does not bow to special interests, but sticks to the law regardless of whether the results are popular or not. Similar to Chief Justice Roberts, Judge Alito rules for the ``big guy'' when the law and the Constitution say the ``big guy'' should win. He rules for the ``little guy'' when the law and the Constitution say the ``little guy'' should win. That is precisely what good judging is all about, and that is precisely the kind of Justices who ought to be on the Supreme Court and, for most of the time in our history, have been on the Supreme Court--I think it will be 110 of them when Alito gets there. The claims that Judge Alito is somehow hostile to civil rights, minorities, women, and the disabled are really off the mark, and those arguments are intellectually dishonest. It is easy to cherry-pick cases and claim that a judge is out of the mainstream. His fellow colleagues on the Third Circuit, though, give you a completely different picture of Judge Alito than what you have seen painted here in the last 2 days. Fellow colleagues on the Third Circuit testified about Judge Alito's fairness and impartiality with respect to all plaintiffs. For example, Judge Garth testified: I can tell you with confidence that at no time during the 15 years that Judge Alito has served with me and with our colleagues on the court and the countless number of times that we have sat together in private conference after hearing oral argument, has he ever expressed anything that could be described as an agenda. Nor has he ever expressed any personal predilections about a case or an issue or a principle that would affect his decisions. Judge Higgenbotham, Jr., a liberal judge, said: Sam Alito is my favorite judge to sit with on this court. He is a wonderful judge and a terrific human being. Sam Alito is my kind of conservative. He is intellectually honest. He doesn't have an agenda. Kate Pringle, a former Alito law clerk and Democrat who has known the judge since 1994, testified that: [Judge Alito] was not, in my personal experience, an ideologue. He pays attention to the facts of cases and applies the law in a careful way. He is conservative in that sense. His opinions don't demonstrate an ideological slant. I found Judge Lewis's testimony to be particularly compelling. Judge Lewis described himself to the committee this way. These are his words: ``openly and unapologetically pro-choice'' and ``a committed human rights and civil rights activist.'' That is how he described himself, Judge Lewis. He testified about Judge Alito: [I]t is in conference, after we have heard oral argument and are not propped up by law clerks--we are alone as judges, discussing the cases--that one really gets to know, gets a sense of the thinking of our colleagues. Judge Lewis continued: And I cannot recall one instance during conference or during any other experience that I had with Judge Alito, but in particular during conference, when he exhibited anything remotely resembling an ideological bent. Judge Lewis further said: If I believed that Sam Alito might be hostile to civil rights as a member of the United States Supreme Court, I guarantee you that I would not be sitting here today. . . . My sense of civil rights matters and how courts should approach them jurisprudentially might be a little different. . . . But I cannot argue with a more restrained approach. As long as my argument is going to be heard and respected, I know that I have a chance. And I believe that Sam Alito will be the type of justice who will listen with an open mind and will not have any agenda-driven or result-oriented approach. Judge Lewis concluded: I am here as a matter of principle and as a matter of my own commitment to justice, to fairness, and my sense that Sam Alito is uniformly qualified in all important respects to serve as a justice on the United States Supreme Court. So who do you believe has accurately depicted Judge Alito's qualifications and record? The speeches of opponents today and yesterday? Or the people who have worked with the judge, day in and day out for years, who know him personally, and who have seen him up close and in the trenches? I will pick those people who have worked with Judge Alito for 15 years, particularly because they come from different political backgrounds and different approaches to the law and the Constitution, as opposed to the partisan, liberal outside interest groups that have probably never even met Judge Alito. I, then, know whom I believe. Not only that. If one wipes away the distorted and deceptive characterizations, as well as the false insinuations and calculated smears, Judge Alito's record plainly shows that he is a dedicated public servant who practices what he preaches: integrity, modesty, judicial restraint, devotion to the law, and devotion to the Constitution. Let me briefly address this issue which has been brought up that somehow Judge Alito's appointment is going to upset the balance of the Court. As I said before, history will take care of the proper ``balance'' on the Court. But some of my colleagues--or maybe speaking for their outside liberal interest groups--have taken the position that Judge Alito has to share Justice O'Connor's judicial philosophy and voting record in order to take her seat on the Court. They argue that Judge Alito should not be confirmed, regardless of whether he is qualified or not, because he does not appear to be Justice O'Connor's judicial philosophy ``soul-mate'', and he would change the ideological balance of the Court. Well, the last time I checked, the Supreme Court does not have seats that are reserved for a conservative or a liberal or a moderate or a Catholic or a Jew or a Protestant, one philosophy or another philosophy--no! The Senate has never taken the position, moreover, that like-minded individuals should replace like-minded Justices leaving the Court. And until just recently, I never heard the argument from the other side of the aisle. That kind of reasoning is completely antithetical to the proper role of the judiciary in our system of government. The reality is that the Senate has historically confirmed individuals to the Supreme Court who are determined to be well qualified to interpret and apply the law. It has not been the Senate's tradition to confirm individuals to promote special interests or represent certain causes. That is not what the Constitution says for the Senate to do. In fact, the Court's composition has changed with the elected branches over the years. Almost half of the Supreme Court Justices have been replaced by individuals appointed by a President of a different political party. The truth is that the Senate has not ever understood its role as maintaining any perceived ideological balance on the Court. In fact, the Senate outright rejected that kind of thinking when Ruth Bader Ginsburg came before us. She was a known liberal, a former general counsel for the ACLU, and she was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate by a vote of 96 to 3. She replaced whom? A conservative justice, Justice Byron White. Yet there were not any arguments from the other side of the aisle or from this side of the aisle that she would upset the balance of the Court. And she did--change the balance of the Court, radically swinging it to the left. I certainly did not agree with Justice Ginsburg's liberal judicial philosophy, but I voted for her. The fact is that the Senate confirmed Justice Ginsburg because President Clinton won the election. He made a promise in that election who he was going to appoint to the Supreme Court. He had a right to nominate who he wanted based upon the results of that election--the same thing for George Bush in the 2000 election and the 2004 election. Moreover, and more importantly, though, Justice Ginsburg had the requisite qualifications to serve on the Court, and she was not a political hack. So she was confirmed. This was the same for Justice Breyer. I knew that Breyer was a liberal and that I probably would not agree with his judicial philosophy, but he was qualified. So I voted for him. The Senate confirmed Justice Breyer by a vote of 87 to 9. The President had made his choice. The Senate found him to be qualified, and we confirmed him. Republicans certainly did not put up any roadblocks to the Ginsburg and Breyer nominations. I would say that Judge Alito is no more out of the mainstream than Justices Breyer and Ginsburg. The Democrats and liberal outside interest groups are intent on changing the rules of the game because they did not win at the ballot box in 2000 and 2004, or maybe over the last 10 years. The way the Democrats want to operate now is not the way we have operated in the past. But the truth is, by politicizing and degrading the nominations process, and the nominees themselves, we will end up driving away our best and brightest minds from volunteering for public service. It is disappointing to me to see a decent man and his family have to endure hurtful allegations and insinuations which are just plain false and, moreover, mean-spirited. It is disappointing to me that so many of my colleagues are going down this path, creating a standard that can only harm the independence of the judiciary, and severely distort our system of government. Before I conclude my remarks, I want to quote from a letter I received from an Iowa constituent. I will only quote it in part, but I will include it for the Record. Her name is Joan Watson-Nelson, and she wrote about her very personal impressions of Judge Alito when they attended high school together in the late 1960s in New Jersey. I don't know exactly how she got to Iowa. But she is there and she wanted me to know how she remembered Sam Alito. She wrote: I remembered [Samuel Alito] because he stood out in his class and in the school. He was one of the leaders of the school. . . . I remembered him being very bright, well prepared, and brilliant. He appeared to be an individual with vision. . . . . He stood out as a young man with a great deal of integrity. Many of his teachers from high school are gone now. But I know if they were here and could write letters on his behalf, they would have many stories to tell about the kind of student he was both inside and outside the classroom. The letter continues: I am not a very political person. I have some issues that I believe in deeply and others that I do not have a deep commitment about. I am sure that Sam and I do not agree on all the issues that will be placed before him. The abortion issue is likely to be one of those, as I understand from the media that he may be against abortion. However, I do strongly believe that he will listen to the arguments placed before him, research the law, and decide honorably. She concludes her letter this way: It has been nearly 40 years since he graduated from high school. I think the implication is she hasn't even talked to him in the last 40 years. She says: And although I have a good memory for details, the specific details of my involvement with Sam are not as clear as I would like to have them be in my endorsement for him. What is left, however, is the internalized memory of Sam. That memory tells me that he will make an excellent Supreme Court justice. I hope that with your hearings on his appointment, you and the others will be able to make that clear to any who may wish to try to discredit him for political reasons. What I learned about the Supreme Court branch of government-- Talking about when she was in school-- is that this part of the ``checks'' in our system is to be devoid of politics. I believe that Sam has what it takes to fulfill that role. I think this is a very nice testimonial about the man we are going to vote on and hopefully confirm to become the next member of the Supreme Court. I appreciate Ms. Watson-Nelson's letter letting us know about her personal experience with Sam Alito. She hit the nail on the head. The Supreme Court needs to get out of the business of politics, and we need to stop discrediting good nominees for political reasons. She, like most Americans, knows what is going on. So, it is clear to me, the people who know Judge Alito personally believe, without any reservation, that he is a judge who follows the law and the Constitution without preset outcomes in mind. They believe he is a man of great intellect and insight. They believe he is a fair and open-minded judge committed to doing what is right, rather than committed to implementing a political agenda or a personal agenda. They believe he is a man of integrity, modesty, and restraint. I am pleased to support Judge Alito's nomination. Judge Alito will be a great Justice, not a politician on the bench. He won't impose his personal views or be a judicial activist, but will make decisions as they should be decided--in an impartial manner, with the appropriate restraint, in accordance with the laws and the Constitution. Judge Alito will carry out the responsibilities of a Justice in a principled, fair, and effective manner. I am proud to cast my vote in support of this decent and honorable man. I wish this story would end with qualifications, integrity, and judicial restraint, because only those considerations should matter. But it looks as though the most partisan and political among us won't let that happen. There may be some who will vote against Judge Alito's confirmation, not because of qualifications or integrity, and not even because they want somebody to legislate from the bench or treat the Constitution as a blank slate that judges can freely draw upon. No, it appears some Senators will vote against this nominee because they think doing so is a good political issue. Instead of applying the same standard we Republicans applied when the Senate overwhelmingly confirmed Justice Ginsburg, the most liberal Justice on the Court, these partisans will change the rules in the middle of the game once again. They will vote against Judge Alito with an eye toward the next election and the demands of their most extreme and activist supporters. The Washington Post had it right when it editorialized on January 15: A Supreme Court nomination isn't a forum to refight a presidential election. I would go a step further than that editorial. A Supreme Court nomination is not a forum to fight any election. It is the time to perform one of our most important constitutional duties and decide whether a nominee is qualified to serve on the Nation's highest court. I hope my colleagues will cast their vote based on Judge Alito's outstanding qualifications, rather than on the distorted claims of liberal outside-interest groups. I urge my colleagues to rise above partisan politics and support this worthy nominee, Samuel Alito. Samuel Alito deserves our overwhelming vote of approval, and it would be a great shame if he doesn't get it. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the letter from which I quoted.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, do I have 30 minutes?

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I speak today with deep sorrow, for we have lost a truly brave American and soldier. MAJ Stuart Anderson died on January 7, 2006, when the Blackhawk helicopter he was in crashed just outside Tal Afar in northern Iraq. His helicopter was part of a two helicopter team providing support for the 101st Airborne Division. Major Anderson was assigned to the 3rd Corps Support Command, Army National Guard. My condolences go out to his wife, Tori; his two daughters, Keely 15, and Kirsten 10; his parents, Claremont and Nancy Anderson; and many other family and friends. Major Anderson grew up in Hoffman, MN, and then graduated from Benson High School in Benson, MN. He attended North Dakota State University. Maj. Anderson had been living in Dubuque, IA, for the past 5 years and was scheduled to return home this fall. He was a supply and service support representative for his Des Moines based unit; he made sure combat troops in some of Iraq's most dangerous areas had the proper supplies. Major Anderson joined the Army Reserve in 1984, became an officer in 1989, and was serving in his second tour of duty in Iraq. Many of Major Anderson's colleagues define him as a trusted and humble leader. LTC Thomas Nielsen wrote that ``Major Anderson was one of the finest officers I have known in my 28-year career.'' Major Anderson's father said that ``he was very proud of being in the military . . . he just loved it.'' He was known to sprinkle in humor with his training and with his annual Christmas cards. His humor will be missed by all who knew him. I ask my colleagues in the Senate and every American to remember the sacrifice that Major Anderson gave for our freedom.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I was saddened to learn of the sudden passing of Forest City Chief of Police Douglas ``Doug'' Book on January 13. Doug leaves behind a remarkable career in law enforcement that spans over three decades. He has had an immense impact not only in his community of Forest City but throughout the entire State of Iowa. Doug Book began his career as a full-time patrolman in 1968 and quickly rose amongst the ranks of his department until he was appointed chief of police in 1973. He served faithfully in this capacity until his passing. In addition to his dedicated service to his community, Doug also served Iowa as the head of the North Central Iowa Narcotics Task Force for the past 10 years. Doug also served as chairman of the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy Board and as president of the Iowa Association of Chiefs of Police and Peace Officers. Doug's constant support and guidance for his fellow officers did not stop at Iowa's borders but spilled over to other departments in New York City. Chief Book joined a group of Iowa police officers as part of a critical incident stress management team that helped New York City police officers cope with the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. One of Doug's colleagues described him simply as a ``good guy, a good cop, and a good friend.'' His friends and family should be very proud of what he has done for so many people. Chief Book's devotion, hard work, and dedication to duty will be sorely missed.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor an heroic American who has fallen while serving his country in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. First Sergeant Tobias Meister died December 28, 2005, when a bomb was detonated near his humvee just south of Asadabad, Afghanistan. First Sergeant Meister was part of the Sand Springs based 486th Civil Affairs Battalion and was assigned to the Army Reserve's 321st Civil Affairs Brigade based in San Antonio, TX. My deepest sympathies go out to his wife Alicia, his 1 year old son Will, his parents David and Judy, his brother and many more family and friends. First Sergeant Meister was born in Kingsley, IA and graduated from Remsen-Union High School in 1994. He was employed by Horizon Natural Resources, an oil and gas firm, after he had successfully completed a business administration degree with a concentration in international business from the University of Texas at San Antonio. Tobias Meister joined the Iowa National Guard in 1992 and served as an infantryman before transferring to the U.S. Army Reserve in 1998. He was named Drill Sergeant of the Year in 2002, the award for the Nation's top Army Reserve drill sergeant. He will be remembered for his patriotism, his love for his country and his fellow soldiers. As written by comrades on his website, he had ``so much passion for what he was doing, so much patriotism it was a privilege and an honor to work with him.'' I urge all of my colleagues here and all Americans to extend their prayers to the family of a truly heroic American, First Sergeant Tobias Meister.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank you, Senator Baucus for raising the issue. Providing relief from the alternative minimum tax for millions of American families is critically important. The alternative minimum tax is badly in need of reform and I know he is anxious to work with me on that important task. Until such time, we must provide annual relief to prevent further expansion of that tax's reach. I was proud that we were able to accomplish that objective as part of the tax reconciliation bill that passed the Finance Committee and the Senate at the end of November. I remain committed to seeing that AMT relief enacted into law. In addition, we should act quickly on other expiring tax provisions to provide simplification and certainty for individuals and businesses, alike.

Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator from Mississippi is correct. It was not the intent of the conferees to suggest that by dropping bona fide services fees from the final agreement that those service fees should be included in the calculation of the Medicaid Average Manufacturer Price, AMP, based reimbursement methodology as established in the pharmacy reimbursement provisions of the conference agreement. I thank my colleague from Mississippi for seeking this clarification. continued dumping Subsidy offset act

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Senator from Missouri. Yes, I want to clarify the intent is not to create an additional liability where none exists today. Pharmacy benefit managers mayor may not be liable third parties. It is dependent upon whether they are ultimately responsible for the payment of a claim. It is my understanding that the health plan or employer contracting with the pharmacy benefit manager is ultimately at risk for the underlying claim, so it is my belief this will not create new liability for the pharmacy benefit manager.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to explain my action today related to S. 1057, a bill to amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. I requested that Leader Frist inform me prior to entering into any unanimous consent agreement relating to any amendments, motions, or any other actions relating to consideration of this bill. This legislation exempts American Indians/Alaskan Natives from being charged a deductible, copayment, or coinsurance for an item or service for which payment may be made under the Medicaid or SCHIP programs in the Social Security Act. I am reluctant to treat one group differently from other groups. In my opinion, this is a precedent setting change. If we start by exempting one group from costsharing, then many other groups may start asking for the same exemption. This legislation also exempts several types of property from being considered in Medicaid eligibility. We understand that there may be special circumstances that may necessitate the need for these provisions. We have requested additional information from the Indian Affairs Committee to facilitate our understanding of these exemptions. However, we have not yet received the requested information. In my opinion, without further information, these provisions send the message that resources are irrelevant to a determination of Medicaid eligibility. I don't believe that individuals should have significant resources and still be eligible for Medicaid. These provisions would create an imbalance by allowing a loophole solely for one group. I want to be clear: it is not that I am concerned about making these changes for American Indians/Alaskan Natives, I am concerned about making these changes for any group. I welcome the opportunity to continue to work with the sponsors of this legislation, Senators McCain and Dorgan, and with members of the Indian Affairs Committee on this matter. My staff has been working with staff from the Indian Affairs Committee, but they have not yet resolved my concerns.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. We also include policies that give States the option of asking for a limited set of Medicaid beneficiaries to share in the cost of their care. The cost-sharing policy excludes anyone under the Federal poverty level, mandatory children, adoption or foster care children, preventative care and immunizations for all children, pregnancy-related services, hospice residents, and women who qualify for Medicaid under the breast and cervical cancer eligibility group. It is a reasonable, responsible policy that I encourage my colleagues to support. These are all modifications of what the House of Representatives did in their provisions in this area. These are important, measured first steps that our Governors, in this communication to the Congress to which I previously referred, have asked for, on a bipartisan basis, to reform the Medicaid Program. Now, the Medicaid Program is a Federal-State program. It is a big cost to the Governors. If we have Governors, 50 of them, of both political parties, coming to us and saying: We can tell you how to spend your taxpayers' dollars more wisely, and we will save some money at the State level, and we will be able to serve more people--they came to us and said that to us. And this document responds to that. I don't know how 100 Senators can put their judgment--just in case they disagree with what we are trying to do. I suppose if they agree, this doesn't apply to them. I don't know how those Senators who disagree with what we are doing on a Federal-State program can put their judgment above that of 50 Governors who are almost equally divided between Republicans and Democrats. This bill also dramatically increases funding to protect Medicaid from fraud and abuse. It does so by creating a Medicaid integrity program that mirrors a similar program already in place in the sister program of Medicare. The agreement incorporates the Family Opportunity Act. This is a major improvement in Medicaid. This is a program that Senator Kennedy and I have been working on for 7 years. These provisions will help families meet the needs of their children with disabilities. Right now, these parents, if they have a child with disabilities, face difficult decisions. I can document this among my own constituents in Iowa, that time and time again, many parents of disabled children tell me of their struggles getting health care for their children with costly special needs. Many parents have been effectively forced to quit their jobs, to take low-paying jobs so this child with costly medical care can qualify for Medicaid. Why? Because the services their child needs are not available with private health insurance. So they need the assistance of Medicaid. This policy we presently have in place and in the Family Opportunity Act turns by 180 degrees; it is totally backward. This agreement allows States to give these parents in this situation the option to buy into Medicaid while continuing to work and probably in most cases continuing to pay taxes. These are folks who want to work and can work, and we should not have a disincentive to productive employment in America just because some family has a child with special very expensive health needs. Moving on, the agreement also fills shortfalls in funding of their State children's health insurance programs that States would have experienced just next year. We also include $2 billion to assist Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi, as well as other States to meet health care needs of people whose lives were devastated by Katrina. It extends TANF Programs with a few minor improvements. It closes several loopholes in TANF and in child support, while providing funding for childcare, child welfare, and allowing more child support to go directly to families. For nearly 4 years, I have tried to reauthorize TANF in the regular order. Without any help from Democrats, I reported a bill out of the last Congress on a partisan basis. That year, Senator Frist devoted a week for the consideration of welfare. The first floor amendment offered on behalf of Senator Snowe would have increased childcare spending by $6 billion--I voted for it--bringing the total childcare money to $7 billion. That passed with 78 votes. Unfortunately, even with that victory which they won, Democrats blocked it. I kept trying, and this year I worked out a bipartisan bill with Senator Baucus that the committee reported out on a voice vote. But again, efforts to reauthorize welfare in regular order have stalled. If we don't pass the Deficit Reduction Act, we will have to extend TANF for a 12th time. That is an unconscionable way to legislate. States cannot continue operating their welfare programs unsure of what the next reauthorization will bring. Advocates complain that the $1 billion is not enough childcare money. But I say to them, where were you over the past year when there was $6 billion on the table and I was committed to bringing that $6 billion out of conference or we would not have had a conference report on TANF? There has never been enough childcare money to satisfy those on the far left--$5.5 billion wasn't enough; $7 billion wasn't enough. I don't even know if $20 billion would have been enough. The fact remains that there hasn't been an increase in childcare for 4 years, and if we persist in passing extension after extension, there won't be any new childcare money at all. As I said in the beginning, it is difficult for many folks to get beyond the numbers. But as I laid out here, this agreement includes many provisions to provide services that better meet people's needs, and it does so by getting rid of waste and abuse in the programs. These are dollars that right now we are simply throwing away. They get taxpayers and beneficiaries nothing. Without some changes, these important programs of Medicare, Medicaid, and TANF will be driven into the ground. That some folks don't support these changes--well, to me, I believe they cannot see the forest for the trees. The agreement before us includes sound policies. It achieves savings by reducing wasteful spending, closing loopholes, and taking steps to pay providers more accurately. It improves oversight of Medicaid to crack down on fraud and wasteful spending. It establishes policies to help families and beneficiaries and to ensure long-term viability of these programs. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time for Senator Gregg.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree that CMS needs to develop a process to permit medically necessary Part B therapy services that exceed the cap in a timely manner. I also believe that this process should not result in the delay of needed therapy services. I would hope that CMS would provide an outline as to how they envision the exceptions process to work so that beneficiaries needing therapy services beyond the $1,740 caps receive the therapy they need if medically necessary.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this is correct.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume but not more than 30 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I comment on the Senate Committee on Finance portion of the Deficit Reduction Act, I will go over some ground that has been covered by other Members on our side of the aisle through this chart or similar charts, to point out how three entitlement programs--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--as a percentage of the gross domestic product are going to continue to grow and grow and grow until reaching a point where it squeezes out almost everything else in the Federal budget. This is already legislated. The red on the chart, if we do nothing, is where we end up. This bill is doing something about that problem. But we ought to be doing a lot more. I start out by saying what we are doing in this entire deficit reduction package is reducing expenditures of the Federal Government over the next 5 years. Five years is the length of the budget reconciliation changes that we are making. During that 5-year period of time, the Federal Government will spend about $12.5 trillion. We are cutting out of that $12.5 trillion, a 5-year figure, about $10 billion as shown in the red part of the chart. The reason I try to put that in perspective, one-quarter of 1 percent is at $40 billion, compared to the $12.5 trillion. That is a spit in the ocean compared to what the problem is. I point out two things. We will hear from Members of this Senate, mostly from the other side of the aisle, that it is catastrophic we are making changes to one-quarter of 1 percent in all the money the Federal Government is going to spend over the next 5 years. It is catastrophic. The world is coming to an end, we will hear. Then, from the other point of view, considering what these problems are that we know we face today--and no Republican or Democrat disagrees with that--for what we are doing we ought to be somewhat ashamed we cannot do more than one-quarter of 1 percent of all the money the Federal Government is going to spend in the next 5 years. For the average American who votes and thinks that Washington, DC, is on some other land from the standpoint of what we do in the Congress, they would say to both sides of the argument that the world is coming to an end, that we are going to eliminate or reduce one-quarter of 1 percent or to those that are bragging--I will be in that category of bragging--about doing something about one-quarter of 1 percent, they are going to say, you guys have to be crazy if you cannot find in all the money that the Federal Government spends, some way of saving more than one-quarter of 1 percent of the $12.5 trillion that will be spent over the next 5 years. They would probably say you ought to go out and find some other work where you can accomplish something. Those are the extreme points of view. That is what I think the public is probably going to say to us at our town meetings when we go back home if we are going to brag about this, or maybe to the people that are going to complain about it, asking if we are really doing much. It is similar to all the labor that an elephant will go through to give birth and then give birth to a mouse. That is what we have here, a mouse compared to the elephant of a problem. I take an opportunity to explain what is in the Senate Committee on Finance portion of this bill. Senator Gregg needs to be complimented for getting us where we are today on this conference agreement. What I described, one-quarter of 1 percent of all money over the next 5 years, $12.5 trillion worth, this is the first time we have gone through this process in almost 10 years. So we do not do this every year. And the public watching would say: Why don't you do it every year? I wish I had a responsible answer for that. But I think we ought to recognize Senator Gregg's involvement and the involvement of all the chairmen of the committees in putting together, over several months, this budget reconciliation package for spending to achieve this goal, and achieving this goal regardless of how small it might be. It is important for the reason I have given you, that by all accounts, the growth in entitlement spending has monumental implications for our Nation's economic and financial strength. The chart I just spoke about shows the Congressional Budget Office's projections for mandatory spending, including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. According to this chart, by 2050 mandatory spending will approach 30 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product. That is 30 percent by 2050. This would push Federal spending well above the levels that it has been throughout much of the post- World War II period, as evidenced by that straight line that goes across that chart. This might be, hopefully, a worst case scenario, but it is a plausible scenario. The agreement that we are going to be voting on, called the budget reconciliation package, begins to get at this situation--the red on this chart--by achieving nearly $40 billion in savings over the next 5 years. That includes $6.4 billion in net Medicare savings and $4.7 billion in net Medicaid savings. I actually hesitate to mention those amounts because for many of our constituents it is hard to get past the numbers. To them, any reduction--any reduction--even if it is only one-fourth of 1 percent, is a bad reduction. But the policy--and we ought to be making decisions in this body based upon sound policy--the policy behind these reductions is sound, just as the policy behind the numerous spending provisions in this entire package is sound. Throughout this process I have sought to reduce wasteful spending, eliminate loopholes, and pay providers more accurately. I have sought to advance policies that will ensure the availability of important health care and social services, to update these programs to reflect our Nation's changing needs, and also to promote the delivery of high- quality health care services. The agreement makes some important improvements in the Medicare Program, not the least of which is addressing a scheduled reduction in payments to physicians, which could have led to access problems for beneficiaries. The agreement builds on progress made 3 years ago that linked increases in Medicare payments to hospitals to the reporting of quality data. I actually would have preferred to do more in the area of pay for performance, and I will continue to push further for changes because we just cannot sit back on this issue, as the private sector is moving much faster than Government, particularly the major corporations of America, in making sure they do their health care business with people in the health care profession and institutions in the health care profession that are going to deliver quality care. We have to be more concerned about this than we have in the past in the Federal Government. Medicare is the single largest payer of health care in the Nation. Taxpayers and beneficiaries deserve to get the highest value for every Medicare dollar spent. Unfortunately, there is no question that today we are not getting the most value for the taxpayer dollar. The bill also takes steps to ensure access to quality care in rural communities. It does this by reinstating special payment programs, such as a 5-percent add-on for rural home health providers, the Medicare dependent hospital program, and the hold-harmless payments for small rural hospitals. The conference agreement also includes coverage of valuable preventive benefits not covered by Medicare. These preventive benefits are important to prevent illnesses and to keep beneficiaries healthy. This bill also saves beneficiaries and Medicare money by changing the payment structure for durable medical equipment. Now Medicare will only pay for DME services that are needed; that is, after we get this passed. I would like to look at Medicaid changes. In our efforts to reform the Medicaid Program, we take some very important steps, many of them recommended by a bipartisan group of our Nation's Governors. Eventually, all 50 Governors made suggestions to us in a unanimous agreement. Let's just look at long-term care. In the very near future, a lot of older people are going to need long-term care. Right now, Medicaid is a primary payer for long-term care services. The Deficit Reduction Act expands the Long-Term Care Partnership Program and will promote awareness about long-term care insurance. We combine that with a policy to tighten restrictions on seniors' ability to transfer or hide assets with the intention of qualifying for Medicaid. These policies protect the integrity of Medicaid and create an incentive for seniors to explore new long-term care options. The agreement will ensure accurate payments to pharmacies for the cost of drugs, and it has little effect on the market. We give States the ability to offer Medicaid beneficiaries coverage more consistent with coverage typically offered by employers, while at the same time guaranteeing that children do not lose any benefits currently provided under Medicaid. We include protections for preventive services and treatment for children. This bill continues to require States which cover early, periodic, screening, diagnosis, and treatment services to continue to do that. The language of the bill is very clear. Mr. President, on that very point, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement by Dr. McClellan, Administrator of CMS, supporting our interpretation of the provisions.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent the following Senate Committee on Finance interns and fellows be granted floor privileges during the consideration of the conference report to accompany S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act: Melissa Atkinson, Brad Behan, and Amber Mackenzie.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Senator for his careful explanation of the law. I agree completely that the intent of the Finance Committee in including the limitation of section 664(g)(7) was to provide for an orderly and fair transfer of stock received in a gratuitous transfer and that we intended the value of the stock to be determined upon allocation to the participant's account and not upon some earlier date.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to submit for the record the Joint Committee's technical explanation of the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005. This explanation is of the Senate amendment to H.R. 4440. This legislation was passed by the Senate on Friday, December 16, 2005. Let me make it clear that this technical explanation was actually submitted to the Senate at the time the bill was passed to be printed in the Congressional Record. Unfortunately, due to a clerical error this did not happen. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the technical explanation be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Senator for that clarification. His description is correct. employee retention credit--tax-exempt financing

Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree that many eligible hard-working families who qualify for the EITC and the child tax credit but whose lives have been sharply affected by the hurricane may face particular challenges and hurdles in applying for and receiving these credits. I also concur that is incumbent upon the IRS to take all steps it can to ensure that the public and the tax preparation community have clear, detailed, and understandable information about any adjustments and modifications it makes to help Katrina victims who qualify for the credits get them. I believe that the IRS should report to Congress within the next couple of weeks the action it has taken to implement the provisions of section 406 and section 407 HKTRA, pertaining to the EITC and CTC, including outreach and communication efforts undertaken by IRS to inform taxpayers, tax practitioners, and volunteer tax preparation programs of these provisions, including the guidance provided to them by IRS on how the flexible authority to IRS in section 407 is being interpreted and implemented. IRS should publish such guidance, including typical questions and answers, in formats that are accessible to taxpayers, commercial tax practitioners, volunteer tax preparer organizations and low-income taxpayer clinics, including but not limited to the IRS Web site.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today for the purpose of honoring a fallen American. I learned this week that AW2 John N. Kaye III, from Traer, IA, died while in service to his country during counter narcotics operations off the coast of Colombia. I would like to take this opportunity to salute his patriotism and his sacrifice. We can often tell a lot about the character of an individual by how they help the people around them. Petty Officer Kaye was a man who would willingly extend a helping hand to those around him and this week even extended his mission to help out a fellow sailor. Just before leaving the Navy, though, he extended his stay aboard the USS DeWert for one final mission so that another sailor could be with his family to mourn the loss of a brother. Sadly, Petty Officer Kaye gave his life in service to his country on Tuesday off the coast of Colombia. John Kaye was looking forward the completion of his tour of duty in the Navy so that he could return to Iowa to be near family and friends and attend college. He was from a large family in central Iowa and attended North Tama High School where he played football. In his free time, he loved to hunt and fish or just spend time with his friends in the Traer area. In the Navy, he was one of the youngest people to ever graduate from the Search and Rescue Program where he received training as a rescue swimmer. The primary mission for members of our military is to protect American citizens from outside threats. For John Kaye, the threat was drugs being grown and processed in South America, and he was actively involved in our effort to reduce the flow of illegal drugs into the United States. The Navy is an important partner in our efforts to track down and apprehend drug traffickers in the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea, and John Kaye deserves the highest gratitude of this body and the entire Nation. His sacrifice reminds us that freedom is so precious because of its incredibly high cost. This is an example of the patriotic contribution made by thousands of American service members and their families. The love of country and dedication to service shared by so many of its citizens is the great strength of our Nation, and we can all be very proud of patriots like John Kaye.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to re-introduce the Fair Contracts for Growers Act of 2005. This bill would simply give farmers a choice of venues to resolve disputes associated with agricultural contracts. This legislation would not prohibit arbitration. Instead, it would ensure that the decision to arbitrate is truly voluntary and that the rights and remedies provided for by our judicial system are not waived under coercion. I certainly recognize that arbitration has tremendous benefits. It can often be less costly than other dispute settlement means. It can also remove some of the workload from our Nation's overburdened court system. For these reasons, arbitration must be an option--but it should not be a coerced option. Mandatory arbitration clauses are used in a growing number of agricultural contracts between individual farmers and processors. These provisions limit a farmer's ability to resolve a dispute with the company, even when a violation of Federal or State law is suspected. Rather than having the option to pursue a claim in court, disputes are required to go through an arbitration process that puts the farmer at a severe disadvantage. Such disputes often involve instances of discrimination, fraud, or negligent misrepresentation. The effect of these violations for the individual farmer can be bankruptcy and financial ruin, and mandatory arbitration clauses make it impossible for farmers to seek redress in court. When a farmer chooses arbitration, the farmer is waving rights to access to the courts and the constitutional right to a jury trial. Certain standardized court rules are also waived, such as the right to discovery. This is important because the farmer must prove his case, the company has the relevant information, and the farmer can not prevail unless he can compel disclosure of relevant information. Examples of farmers' concerns that have gone unaddressed due to limitations on dispute resolution options include; mis-weighed animals, bad feed cases, wrongful termination of contracts, diseased swine or birds provided by the company, fraud and misrepresentation to induce a grower to enter a contract, and retaliation by companies against farmers who join producer associations. During consideration of the Farm Bill, the Senate passed, by a vote of 64-31, the Feingold-Grassley amendment to give farmers a choice of venues to resolve disputes associated with agricultural contracts. I have some letters supporting this legislation and ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of bill be printed in the Record.