Chuck Grassley

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.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this amendment 2680 acts on our commitment to provide rebuilding assistance to areas of the country devastated by this year's relentless hurricane season. It will benefit residents of the gulf region, as well as more recently impacted areas of Texas and Florida, and provides much needed relief and resources for economic rebuilding to those areas. As promised, we have made our best effort to marry up our compassion for displaced persons and damaged communities with attention to fiscal discipline and the best use of taxpayer dollars. This bill represents an effort to most efficiently and effectively use the tax code to assist in the rebuilding and revitalization of those regions. I will reiterate the guiding principles of our hurricane relief legislation. First, because market forces will be the driver in getting these regions back on their feet, our bill includes only provisions that encourage and incentivize redevelopment. Second, our package provides resources only to those who incurred uninsured losses and does not provide for a bailout of those who assumed risk as an insurer in our capitalist, free-market system. Third, we have focused our limited Federal resources on those most in need--like the many devastated small business employers who were the backbones of these economies and who will be the engines of their future growth and prosperity. The amendment provides front-loaded incentives on a timely basis to encourage people and businesses to return to the region as quickly as possible. I want to show my appreciation to my colleagues in the Senate and in the House for working to get this legislation to the President as quickly as possible. Before we go home to spend time with our families, it is important for us to help the many families who have had their lives overturned by the recent hurricanes. Hopefully they will think of this holiday season as a time of rebuilding and opportunity. The amendment also includes tax technical correction provisions related to the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 and other tax legislation. Technical corrections measures are routine for major tax acts and are necessary to ensure that the provisions of the acts are working consistently with their original intent, or to provide clerical corrections. Because these measures carry out congressional intent, no revenue gain or loss is scored from them. The process and test for technical corrections ensures that only provisions narrowly drawn to carry out Congressional intent are included. Technical corrections are derived from a deliberative and consultative process among the congressional and administration tax staffs. That means the Republican and Democratic staffs of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees are involved as is the Treasury department staff. All of this work is performed with the participation and guidance of the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation staff. A technical enters the list only if all staffs agree it is appropriate. The Senate Finance Committee and the Committee on Ways and Means, in consultation with the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Department of the Treasury, are continuing to assess proposals for other technical corrections which may be needed to achieve congressional intent. On that point, no double benefit is intended under the railroad track maintenance credit of code section 45G. If the current basis adjustment rule is not serving to carry out that intent, the provision may need to be clarified. Such a clarification might provide that basis or tax attribute reduction applies to the taxpayer taking the credit. I would like to ask the staff to work on this. In conclusion, this package will show those affected by Hurricanes Rita, Wilma, and Katrina that their needs have not been forgotten, and that we will continue to help them rebuild their homes, communities, and lives.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I share concern with the impact that Katrina will have on the ability of low wage working families who qualify for the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit to receive them for the 2005 tax year. In addition, I certainly agree that something must be done to address this problem for families who generously gave of themselves and took in a child displaced by Katrina but may lack the proper formal authorization that would prevent them from receiving the EITC they qualify for and would otherwise get. To help address this problem, I would urge the IRS to accept a child placement decision by an authorized agency as being retroactive to the earliest point in 2006 when the taxpayer first took in the child. This would apply only to children who had resided in a hurricane disaster zone in 2005 as defined under HKTRA and under any subsequent legislation extending HKTRA provisions to Rita and Wilma survivors. I have been advised that the IRS has the ability to adopt this approach under section 407 of HKTRA and any equivalent extension to Rita and Wilma survivors--that enables the Secretary to make adjustments in application of rules to ensure that hurricane survivors do not lose tax benefits. I know my colleague from Montana joins me in urging the IRS to use this authority to help these foster care families who so generously took in children displaced by Katrina.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree with Senator Lott's interpretation of this provision of the bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree with Senator Lott's interpretation of this provision of the bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, over the past several years the Congress has worked hand-in-hand with the administration to foster greater peace and stability in the Middle East through trade. We have concluded and implemented free trade agreements with Israel, Jordan, and Morocco. We recently concluded negotiations with Oman and negotiations are ongoing with United Arab Emirates. Perhaps soon, we will launch negotiations with our good friend and ally, Egypt. Yesterday, with the passage of S. 2027, the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, we took another historic step forward. Once this agreement enters into force, 98 percent of our agricultural exports to Bahrain will enter duty-free and 100 percent of our two-way trade in industrial and consumer products will be duty-free. The agreement sets a new standard on services, with broad commitments by Bahrain to open their service sector to our exports. Passage of the U.S.-Bahrain FTA will help advance the President's goal of achieving a Middle East Free Trade Area, MEFTA, by 2013. This visionary agenda is a key element in our efforts to help foster economic growth and prosperity in an important region of the world. It also reflects keen appreciation by the Bush administration of the 9/11 Commission Report recommendation that ``a comprehensive U.S. strategy to counter terrorism should include economic policies to encourage development, more open societies, and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their families and to enhance prospects for their children's future.'' I am pleased that we are able to take another step toward fulfilling this recommendation with passage of the Bahrain agreement. This would not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of many people. I first want to recognize Ambassador Robert Zoellick. As the former U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Zoellick spearheaded our trade agenda, including initiation of negotiations with Bahrain. This year, Ambassador Portman took up the reigns as our U.S. Trade Representative. Ambassador Portman has proven to be an able and effective negotiator who faithfully works with Congress to achieve the best result for America in our trade agreements. Ambassador Portman was assisted by Catherine Novelli, before her departure, as well as her replacement, Ambassador Shaun Donnelly, both serving in their capacity as Assistant U.S. Trade Representatives for Europe and the Mediterranean. With the passage of this agreement, the Finance Committee continues its tradition of bipartisanship on trade. I appreciate the efforts of my ranking member, Senator Max Baucus, in helping remove any impediments to getting this done. An agreement such as this one also would not have been possible without the professionalism and work ethic of Senator Baucus' staff. In this regard, I owe thanks to Russ Sullivan, Democratic staff director, and Bill Dauster, deputy staff director, for their steadfast dedication to the Committee. Brian Pomper, chief international trade counsel to Senator Baucus, also deserves special thanks for his efforts as do Shara Aranoff, Demetrios Marantis, Anya Landau, Janis Lazda, and Chelsea Thomas. I also want to recognize the work of my Finance Committee staff. At the top of the list is Kolan Davis, my chief counsel and staff director. Kolan has been a valuable asset to this committee, lending his counsel and expertise to moving countless bills, including the Bahrain agreement. Everett Eissenstat, chief international trade counsel to the committee, has played an important part in seeing that this agreement is timely implemented. I appreciate his continued dedication to advancing our trade agenda. Everett manages a strong team of dedicated staff who consistently pull together to achieve our trade agenda. David Johanson, Stephen Schaefer, and Tiffany McCullen Atwell provide valuable support to the team. Their hard work and long hours are much appreciated. I also want to recognize Claudia Bridgeford, international trade policy assistant, and Russell Ugone, who is on detail to my staff from the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection in the Department of Homeland Security. Both Claudia and Russ have contributed a great deal to the work of this committee. I would be remiss if I did not take this time to thank Mike Smythers, Special Assistant to the President for Senate Affairs from the White House Office of Legislative Affairs. I also want to thank Matt Niemeyer, Counselor and Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Congressional Affairs. Matt will soon be leaving the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Throughout his tenure, he has been a valuable ally in passage of much of our trade agenda. I appreciate his hard work and service to the American people. Matt was assisted by David ``Andy'' Olson, who provided critical support in moving this agreement. Jonathon Kallmer from the Office of General Counsel at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, also played a key role in working with Congress to ensure faithful implementation of the agreement. I appreciate both of their efforts. Finally, I want to take this opportunity to thank Polly Craghill senior counsel in the Senate's Office of Legislative Counsel, for her role in passing this agreement. Polly never falters in her efforts to provide timely technical expertise to this committee and her work is much appreciated. This is a good day for the United States and Bahrain. I hope President Bush will soon sign this bill and that we will see quick implementation of this historic agreement.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 13, 2005, at 10:15 a.m., in executive session, to consider the nomination of J. Dorrance Smith to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, December 13, 2005, at 10:30 a.m., on the nominations of Deborah Taylor Tate and Michael Joseph Copps to be Federal Communications Commissioners.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor one of our country's bravest, SPC Gregory L. Tull of Pocohontas, IA. Specialist Tull sadly died November 25, 2005, after an improvised explosive device detonated near his Humvee in Al Anbar province in Iraq. Specialist Tull served with the Iowa Army National Guard's 1st Battalion, 194th Field Artillery based in Storm Lake, IA. He was only 20 years old. I ask that all Americans join me in remembering and honoring Specialist Tull. He was an upstanding and courageous soldier who fell far before his time. Our country has survived these many years due to the brave men and women who have served in our Armed Forces, and it greatly saddens me to announce that another young man has made the ultimate sacrifice for our country and for the freedom of Iraq. LTC Gregory Hapgood of the Iowa Army National Guard remembered that Specialist Tull was ``a good guy that didn't shrink from responsibility,'' and was someone who ``wanted in on the action.'' During this crucial time in America's history, we should all remember Greg Tull's courage and dedication to his country. We should also stand with Specialist Tull's parents, Eileen and Gary, and his brother, Bryan, and all his family in their time of grief. Our thoughts and prayers also go out to Gregory's friends, classmates, and all others who were lucky enough to know him. Greg Tull did not die in vain, but rather gave his life defending America and promoting freedom around the world. He will be sorely missed but also fondly remembered.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I do want to, as I have the privilege of so often doing, express my thanks to my Democratic colleague, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, for his cooperation particularly on this United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement that we were able to unanimously report out of our committee. The reason I want to emphasize ``unanimous'' isn't just to be complimentary to Senator Baucus but also to the people of this country who think that everything done in this Congress is always so partisan, that Republicans and Democrats never get along, that we never talk to each other, that we never agree on anything. I can see why they have that impression because that is the impression the news media of America gives about the Congress of the United States. But as practical matter, nothing gets done in the Senate that isn't somewhat bipartisan, and particularly there is quite a tradition of bipartisanship in our Senate Committee on Finance. This recent bill that is before us, the United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement, is the latest representation of that bipartisan cooperation. I thank Senator Baucus very much. I give strong support to the bill S. 2027; that is, the United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. This legislation is not only good for our U.S. economy, but it is also going to promote free trade, which is an economic issue as it creates jobs, but it also promotes democracy, and it promotes economic stability. In regard to economic stability, the reason I emphasize that is because the Middle East is seen as an area of the world that is not very stable. I think that enhancing trade with those countries, large or small, is going to bring great economic stability which in turn ought to bring some political stability. On top of all this, it is going to cement our ties with this small kingdom of Bahrain. That country is a very strong ally of the United States in that region. This trade agreement is a clear win for our economy. It will create jobs. Upon entry into force of this agreement, Bahrain will immediately eliminate 100 percent of its duties on imports of U.S. consumer and industrial products. U.S. farmers will also benefit. On day one of the agreement, Bahrain will grant duty-free access on 98 percent of its tariff lines that apply to U.S. agricultural as well as food products. Duties with respect to that small remaining 2 percent will be phased out over a period of 10 years. This is solid market access for U.S. farmers and U.S. manufacturers. U.S. service providers will also gain from this agreement. Bahrain will provide substantial market access across its entire service regime. The service provisions of the agreement are based upon a ``negative list'' approach, which means that all service sectors are covered. In other words, there will be trade in all service sectors unless they are specifically excluded as a result of the list. Bahrain is already a major center for service providers in the Middle East, and the government recognizes that its service sector can become even stronger through economic liberalization. Because of this agreement, as the region develops, there is going to be very enhanced opportunities for U.S. exporters. While it is important to note how the United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement will benefit the economy of the United States in the aggregate, it is even more important to point out how it will benefit individual U.S. companies and their workers. For me, I didn't have to look very far to find Iowa workers and Iowa companies that benefit from this agreement. For example, the HNI Corporation--it used to be referred to as the HON Corporation--the Fortune 500 company in my State, this company in Muscatine, IA, looks forward to the implementation of this trade agreement. HNI is the second largest manufacturer of office furniture in North America. It is specifically targeting the Bahraini market for increased sales. So HNI employees in Iowa as well as other States will benefit from Senate passage of the agreement. Workers at the Lennox residential heating and cooling products factory in Marshalltown, IA, also stand to gain from the agreement. Lennox has a strong interest in increasing its sales in Bahrain. Like HNI, Lennox has a presence in many States, so its employees not only in Iowa but throughout the country will benefit from the implementation of this agreement. Smaller businesses throughout the United States also stand to benefit from this trade agreement. One such company is Midamar Corporation located in Cedar Rapids. The Midamar Corporation supplies halal food and food service equipment to restaurants, hotels, and distributors throughout the world. This company was started in 1972 by Cedar Rapids native Bill Aossey. When Bill returned to Iowa after serving in the Peace Corps and traveling throughout the Middle East, he came up with the idea of starting a company dedicated to exporting Iowa products. Now, 33 years later, Bill has a lot to show for this hard work. He employs 30 Iowans and the Midamar Corporation is very much a clear success. I visited the Midamar facility last August and I can report Bill Aossey and his employees are very enthusiastic about this prospect of a trade agreement with Bahrain being implemented so they can even do more business in the Middle East. Aside from the immediate benefits to United States exporters to Bahrain, this agreement's impact will extend beyond Bahrain. The United States is promoting trade liberalization and economic growth in other countries in the Middle East and this agreement will serve as the template for other trade agreements being negotiated in the region. The solid gains for U.S. farmers, workers, manufacturers, and service providers found in this agreement may be replicated in other free trade agreements of their region. This has already happened with the country of Oman. The United States recently concluded a free trade agreement with Oman that was based largely upon our agreement with Bahrain so the benefits to HNI Corporation, Lennox, and Midamar that I have identified will be multiplied as other Arab countries adopt free trade agreements with the United States that are based largely upon the Bahrain agreement. This is all part of a broader goal and that was expressed in May 2000 by President Bush proposing a plan of graduated steps for Middle Eastern nations to increase trade and investment with the United States and others in the world economy, culminating with the establishment of the Middle East Free Trade Agreement by the year 2013. The importance of this vision of President Bush was brought home on July 22, 2004, when the report of the 9/11 Commission was released. That report contains as one of its key recommendations that ``comprehensive United States strategy to counterterrorism should include economic policies that encourage development, more open societies and opportunities for people who improve the lives of their families and to enhance the prospect of their children's future.'' Our trade agreement with Bahrain is an important achievement in that area and joins previously concluded bilateral trade agreements between the United States and Israel, Jordan, and Morocco. The agreement with Bahrain is an important part of a broader effort to encourage development, more open societies, and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their families and to enhance prospects for their children's future throughout the Middle East. Finally, I urge my colleagues to support this bill before the Senate implementing the United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request, which I would like to make for Senator Baucus, that the following fellows and interns be granted floor privileges during the duration of the debate on this measure, Jonathan Coleman, Andreas Datsopoulos, and Holly Luck.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I also take this opportunity to speak on a motion to instruct conferees on the Byrd amendment. Yesterday, a Senator sent a letter to the majority leader saying he would oppose the reconciliation bill if we used repeal of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act to achieve billions in budget savings. While disappointed, I was not surprised. In fact, I say, join the club. Already, one Senator told me he would oppose reconciliation unless specific provisions on specialty hospitals were not included. Several other Senators threatened to vote against the reconciliation bill unless the MLLC Program was not extended. Another Senator told me he will vote no if we save money by trimming waste from the Medicaid Program. A group of southern Senators said they would vote no on the reconciliation bill if the Grassley provision on payment limits in the farm program became a part of the bill. So, no savings from the CDSOA repeal; no savings from the MLLC Program; no savings from Medicaid; no savings from payment limits. With everyone threatening to vote ``no'' there will be no savings in any Federal program, ever. Everyone says they are for balanced budgets as long as it is someone else whose budget is cut to get the job done--not their pet issue. We need to ask ourselves whether we want to trim the Federal budget or not. If not, what does the Republican Party stand for? The most egregious threat has to be over budget savings from the repeal of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act. This program is Government pork at its worst. It takes money that should go to the treasury of the United States and it transfers that money to a select group of companies. Talk about special interests, Mr. President. Plus there are very few limits on what these companies can do with the money that is raised by an act of Congress. According to the General Accounting Office, one recipient even used the money to pay off his home mortgage. The program is so bad it did not even pass during the light of day a few years ago. Instead, it was pushed into a conference report before it could receive scrutiny by either House of Congress. Ironically, some are arguing that budget reconciliation shouldn't be used to save money by repealing this amendment. They argue it should go through the regular order. I don't know why they would argue this given the provision never went through regular order before it became law in the first place. Here, unlike passage a few years ago of this bad amendment, repeal went through regular order in the House. Repeal just a couple weeks ago went through regular order in the House where that amendment had never even been considered by the other body when it was originally adopted a few years ago. So let me be clear. We are not talking about repealing any aspect of our trade remedy laws. Every trade protection that has been in place for years stays in place. What we are talking about is getting rid of a Government subsidy program that enriches the few at the expense of the many. A recent report from the Government Accountability Office shows this in very stark detail. Over $1 billion has been distributed so far under this program. One company alone--one company alone--of that $1 billion received almost 20 percent of the disbursements, and the top 5 recipients account for almost half of those disbursements. You do not have to cast a very wide net to see where this corporate welfare is going. Just 39 companies account for over 80 percent of the disbursements. And the World Trade Organization has authorized a number of our trading partners to retaliate against us. This is where, to help a few companies through this amendment, we are going to end up hurting a lot of American producers, some of them in our powerful agriculture, and maybe end up hurting every consumer in America. As a result, innocent U.S. exporters are taking a big hit so the lucky few can continue guzzling at the public trough. Already, our exporters face additional duties imposed by Japan, Canada, Mexico, and the European Union. Here is where it affects some products. Our producers of live swine, fish, oysters, cigarettes, dairy products, wine, paper products, clothing, sweet corn, industrial belts, steel products, forklift trucks, printing machines, and others, are all bearing the brunt of sanctions against some American companies because we have a law on the books that violates our international agreement and at the same time benefits a handful of major companies in America. It happens that Brazil, Chile, India, and South Korea could soon impose sanctions. As more countries exercise their authority to retaliate and as payments under this program continue to grow, innocent U.S. exporters--the ones I have listed and others--and, more importantly, their employees, will continue to be hurt more and more as time goes on. That is not right. This situation needs to end. The Government Accountability Office report points out some other ridiculous aspects of this program, such as the complete lack of accountability. Recipients of funds under the program submit claims based upon qualifying expenditures, but there is no way to tell whether those claims are even justified. In fact, the evidence suggests they may not be justified. In 2004, company claims were about $1.3 trillion. Mr. President, I said that right: Companies were making claims for $1.3 trillion. The gross domestic product of the United States in 2004 was $11.75 trillion. So if the 770 recipients of funds under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, referred to as the Byrd amendment, are to be believed, they spent about 11 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product last year on qualifying expenditures. I understand that in the year 2005--the year now ending--claims are about $3.2 trillion. That is equivalent to one-quarter of the GDP of the entire United States of America. I think those figures show the magnitude of the incentive for fraud under this program. The proponents of this program ought to be embarrassed. This program is bad economic policy, bad trade policy, and bad Government to use the power of Government to end up giving a few companies in this country the benefit of the Federal Government's power to tax. It should be repealed, as the House has done. I hope that coming out of conference we can have this provision in there. I hope we will not instruct conferees to disagree with the House. In the process of doing this, we are going to put $3.2 trillion into the Federal Treasury instead of having it go as corporate welfare to a handful of companies. If we cannot repeal such a blatant example of Government pork to save money during a time of skyrocketing budget deficits, then why are we here as representatives of the people at all? Are we here to protect the pockets of a select few, or do we want to do, and will do, what is in the best interests of our Nation? Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to mark the loss of one of my staff members and to make a statement for The Congressional Record about the good work of this individual for the people of Iowa. Earl Lee Monholland died at home on October 31, 2005, due to heart illness, at the age of 37. Earl worked on my staff for 12 years as a constituent services specialist in Davenport, Cedar Rapids, and Washington, DC. He was a dedicated public servant who thoroughly enjoyed helping Iowans. He was committed to providing assistance in a responsive and timely manner and to making sure that whatever could be done got done behalf of a constituent having problems with the Federal bureaucracy. Earl also was an outstanding colleague to his fellow staff members, going out of his way to make things work for the entire team, especially with the computer systems. I greatly appreciate the fine work that Earl did during the last 12 years and the unassuming way he got the job done. There is no doubt that Earl Monholland will be missed by his friends and colleagues on the Grassley staff.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, no one is more committed to the Community Services Block Grant than I am. The Community Services Block Grant program helps to strengthen communities through services for poor individuals and families, assisting these low-income individuals to become self-sufficient. CSBG provides critical services to poor families throughout the country. Services offered by CSBG entities can help support these important social services programs such as: Head Start, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Programs, LIHEAP, weatherization, literacy and job training programs, child health care, after-school programs, housing and homeownership services, financial literacy and asset development, and food pantries and meal programs. In FY 2002, the 1,100 community action network served more than 13 million individuals in more than 4 million families nationwide. Over the past few months, I have received dozens of letters from Community Action Agencies from across the country, thanking me for my efforts on behalf on the Community Services Block Grant. I, along with Senator Chris Dodd, spearheaded a letter, signed by 56 of our colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, urging Senate conferees to the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill to uphold the Senate funding level of $637 million. I understand that the conference report on the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill includes $637 million for CSBG. I hope that the conference report on the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill will be enacted soon and that these vital resources will be directed to important services for low income individuals. However, I cannot support the Harkin amendment because if that amendment passed, it would result in an interruption of funding not only for CSBG, but for all the social spending programs that low income individuals depend upon. That is not a responsible course of action. We should not make support for CSBG a partisan issue--we should work together to enact the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations Conference Report so that money can be appropriately directed to fund these important services.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I address the Senate in tribute to PFC Dustin Yancey, originally from Cedar Rapids, IA and more recently from Goose Creek, SC. Private First Class Yancey was tragically killed on November 7, 2005 during Operation Iraqi Freedom. His Humvee was struck by an improvised explosive device and both Private First Class Dustin Yancey and Captain James M. Gurbisz were killed. Private First Class Yancey served with the 26th Forward Support Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division based in Fort Stewart, GA. He was only 22 years old. I ask that the Senate, the people of Iowa, and all Americans stand today and recognize the sacrifice that Private First Class Yancey made yearlier this month. Our country has survived throughout the centuries due to the brave men and women who have composed our Armed Forces, and I am saddened to announce to the Senate that another of our bravest will be buried in Arlington National Cemetery. We could all learn from the patriotism and spirit of Private First Class Yancey. His cousin, Brian Yancey of Cedar Rapids, IA, remembered that Private First Class Yancey ``was very much a patriot, very much a military man. He was a person who wanted to do what he could for his country.'' We must remember Private First Class Yancey's family, in both Georgia and Iowa, and stand with them during this time of loss and grief. The thoughts and prayers of countless Americans go out to Private First Class Yancey's family and friends. He did not die in vain, but rather gave his life for the promotion of freedom and security around the world. He will be sorely missed, but will also be an inspiration for future brave Americans for years to come.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this is an amendment sponsored by Senator Baucus and me. It remedies two matters in the bill. The most important one makes the amendment hold harmless, a pure hold-harmless amendment. The amendment also clarifies that Government contractors will receive the research and development credit. This amendment is fully offset.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent agreement that I think has been accepted. I ask unanimous consent that at 3:30 today the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the following amendments in the order sequenced below; further, that they not be subject to second-degree amendments prior to the votes and that there be 2 minutes equally divided between the votes: Dorgan No. 2587; Feinstein No. 2609; Feinstein No. 2610; Cantwell No. 2612; provided further that at 3 today, there be 30 minutes equally divided for debate between the chairman and Senator Dorgan; provided further that following those votes, Senator Coburn be recognized in order to offer his amendment; further, that all votes after the first be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this is an alternative to the Durbin sense-of-the-Senate resolution. The Durbin amendment in essence says certain taxes should be extended and that money ought to be used to provide health care and insurance for children. We agree that more needs to be done to help uninsured people. But we believe that the pretax policy in place is such a good tax policy--for instance, Chairman Greenspan saying that the tax policy has been good for the recovery and the extended growth, bringing in $274 billion this year over last year. We think we need to do all the things--expanding the economy and everything else--because it is through an expanding economy that middle-income people advance themselves; that we have an opportunity then for more people through more income to be able to buy health insurance. We have to do all those things. We can't change tax policy and count that as doing it. I urge this as an alternative to Senator Durbin's amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Senator Sununu wants a couple minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to waive the budget point of order and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the Feinstein amendment is not germane to the underlying bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Then I will forget my last three sentences.