Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. She said she is glad I am her chairman. She means she and I serve on the Finance Committee together. I don't want to mislead the audience, I am not chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Mr. President, I will proceed, then, with the remarks I wanted to make in regard to my support for Judge John Roberts to be the next Chief Justice of the United States. I do support that nomination. Judge Roberts has earned our vote. He understands the proper role of a judge in our constitutional democracy. He understands the courts are not superlegislatures. He understands that I am elected to be a legislator, to make law. If people do not like the law I make, they can vote me out of office. But if Judge Roberts makes law, with a lifetime appointment to the Court, he can never be voted out of office unless he is impeached. He understands that the courts are not responsible for addressing every social ill or injustice that, in fact, ought to be settled through law and public policy. He understands that courts do not create new rights. Rather, courts protect those liberties and rights guaranteed by our Constitution and the laws appropriately enacted by Congress and State legislatures. He also understands that there are a great deal--infinitesimal-- number of unenumerated rights out there for you and me that are reserved under our Constitution to the States and to the people thereof. Judge Roberts said this to the committee: Judges and Justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make rules, they apply them. Judge Roberts underscores that ``judges and Justices'' make sure everybody plays by the rules. But these rules limiting the power of Government over the people apply to the courts as well. He made it very clear to us. In Judge Roberts' view, ``Not everybody went to a ball game to see the umpire.'' That is the right approach to the job of a Supreme Court Justice. Judge Roberts has demonstrated, particularly to the committee, that he understands the limited nature of judges, and especially the humility and the modesty necessary to be the kind of judge we need on our highest Court. Judge Roberts believes that courts may act only to decide cases and controversies. That is exactly what it says in article III of the Constitution. So judges cannot address every unaddressed and unremedied social problem. Judge Roberts said: Judges have to decide hard questions when they come up in the context of a particular case. That is their obligation. But they have to decide those questions according to the rule of law, not their own social preferences, not their policy views, not their personal preferences but according to the rule of law. That is what he told us in committee. Judge Roberts also said: We don't turn a matter over to a judge because we want his view about what the best idea is, what the best solution is. It is because we want him or her to apply the law. Let me say parenthetically, as I would interpret that, not to make law, but to apply the law. He went on to say: They-- Meaning judges-- are constrained when they do that. They are constrained by the words that I choose to enact into law in interpreting that law. They are constrained by the words of the Constitution. They are constrained by the precedents of the other judges that became part of the rule of law that they must apply. This answer he gave to the committee demonstrates that Judge Roberts believes in and will exercise judicial restraint on the bench. This principle of judicial restraint is a cornerstone of our constitutional system, best defined by the tenth amendment--that that power is not specifically given to the Federal Government or reserved to the States and the people thereof. This is the defining characteristic of the judiciary in our Government of divided powers. In particular, I was pleased when Judge Roberts told the committee that he has no agenda to bring to the bench. I want to remind you what Judge Roberts said in a very short opening statement. To quote a little bit of it: I come before the committee with no agenda. I have no platform. Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes. I have no agenda but I do have a commitment. If I am confirmed, I will confront every case with an open mind. I will fully and fairly analyze the legal arguments that are presented. I will be open to the considered views of my colleagues on the bench, and I will decide every case based on the record according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability, and I will remember that it's my job to call the balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat. I was also pleased when Judge Roberts told the committee that: I had someone ask me in this process: Are you going to be on the side of the little guy? And you obviously want to give an immediate answer. But as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy is going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution. That's my oath. So, obviously, Judge Roberts will strive to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States, regardless of his personal beliefs. I want to take a little time to commend Chairman Specter for conducting a fair and respectful hearing. I am pleased we are looking at a timely up-or-down vote on this nominee. Obviously, so many people for so long were inclined to filibuster judges, and to have this important person--this ``well-qualified'' person--go through in the tradition of the Senate doing what the Constitution says to do, give its advice and consent with a 51-vote margin, is something that surprises me to some extent after the last 2 years. But to have it happen gives me a very warm feeling toward all my colleagues for having that up-or-down vote. Article II of the Constitution puts the appointment power in the executive, and says the President gets to nominate the person of his choice to the Supreme Court. And President Bush in an unprecedented manner consulted with more than 70 Senators on both sides of the aisle before sending up Judge Roberts' nomination. President Bush didn't have to do that under the Constitution. But it was wise for him to so do. Even though I have been a member of the Judiciary Committee for my 25th year, I don't remember a President who has talked to me about who I think ought to be appointed. I wouldn't want to say over 25 years that I couldn't have forgotten some Republican or Democrat talking to me about it, but I don't remember. I was consulted by this President on the type of person I thought should be nominated. I was even offered to give names, if I wanted to. And I took advantage of giving my advice to him. At the hearing which Senator Specter conducted, Senators were able to ask numerous questions of the nominee over a period of 3 days. The Judiciary Committee also reviewed thousands of documents, opinions, and other information produced by the White House. Throughout the process, Judge Roberts was patient; he was candid and forthcoming in his responses. Judge Roberts clearly has been the most scrutinized judicial nominee to come before the Senate in my years on the committee. No nominee in these years before the committee has testified as thoroughly and comprehensively on his judicial philosophy as Judge Roberts. I have gone through 10 Supreme Court hearings. Judge Roberts' command of the law and the facts of cases was without precedent. Still, some of my colleagues objected to Judge Roberts' refusal to review the results of cases. But his refusal was absolutely the right thing to do. Judge Roberts wisely resisted the bait to confuse results and reasoning when it comes to the judicial function. No doubt this greatly frustrated some of my colleagues, particularly on the other side of the aisle, who wanted to impose litmus tests on all judicial nominees, who want to extract commitments from nominees to rule in a predetermined way, their political way, regardless of the facts of the law. If they can't get that, if they can't get allegiance to their personal political predilection, and work with their far-left activist groups, well, then it seems as though that nominee isn't worthy of their vote. It stymies me why it would be wrong for the President of the United States to ask a nominee if they support Roe v. Wade or not--and Judge Roberts under oath answered the question of whether the President discussed it with him, and the President didn't discuss it with him-- but a lot of Senators were saying, or at least implying, that it would be wrong for the President to get that sort of litmus test type of commitment from a nominee, but some of those very same Senators found it not in the least bothering their conscience to ask him exactly that same question and expect an answer from him. Frankly, I have no way of knowing how Judge Roberts will rule on the hot-button issues in the next 25 years. I acknowledge that he might rule in ways that will disappoint me in some of the same ways that I was disappointed by Justice O'Connor, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Souter in the years since they have been on the Court. These were all nominees I supported through the Supreme Court confirmation process, but no Senator has a right to impose his or her particular litmus test on an otherwise qualified nominee. I voted, as I said earlier to the Senator from Arkansas, for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as did almost all of my Republican colleagues, because we acknowledge the President's--that was President Clinton--primacy in the appointments to the Supreme Court, even where we knew this Justice Ginsburg had a different philosophy. I knew then that I shared very little in terms of political, social, or philosophical views of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. As everyone knows now, Judge Ginsburg was then affiliated very closely with extremely liberal views--views a majority of the American public would deem way out of the mainstream. But the Judiciary Committee evaluated her as a fully competent person to serve on the Supreme Court. And then because of that, because we were doing what we should constitutionally be doing, we voted her in 96 to 3. As I said in committee, it seems there is a whole new ball game out here when we have an individual with the competence, intelligence, and brilliance of Judge Roberts who nonetheless is going to get a lot of Democrats voting against him. This says far more about the Democrats today than it does about the nominee John Roberts. The truth is that at another time Judge Roberts would have been confirmed 100 to 0, and properly so, as Justice Scalia 20 years ago was approved almost unanimously. Today's Democrats have made the needle's eye for approving so small, so impossibly tiny, even the Supreme Court giants of the past could never pass through it. The reality is that today's Democrat Party seems to be beholden to far left pressure groups who know their radical agenda for America can only be implemented by judicial fiat. I am sad to say that the other party has expressed an unquestionable loyalty to what is probably their base but a base out of touch with the vast majority of Americans. When we finally cast our vote on the nomination of Judge Roberts, most Senate Democrats will show they will be voting in lockstep with the demands of their leftwing interest groups regardless of how qualified, brilliant, or worthy the nominee is. On the other hand, I have to admit since I prepared these remarks, I have heard speeches by two Members of that party within the last hour who I did not think would come to the conclusion of voting for him, who have said within the last hour they were going to vote for Judge Roberts. I am pleased with that. But we still have a situation that has been demonstrated over the last 3 years, up until May of this year when some judges finally got through for the circuits, that judges were being held up for very partisan reasons. The other party and their outside groups have their own agenda. They want the Supreme Court or courts, generally, to implement it, particularly things they might not be able to get through the Congress of the United States. My colleagues like to say they voted for more judges appointed by Republican Presidents than judges appointed by Democrat Presidents. But my friends on the other side of the aisle who say this, are not telling the whole picture. Sure, they voted for a lot of Republican nominees during my time in the Senate. More Republican nominees have been sent up for consideration than Democrat nominees. The point is, the Democrats have stuck like glue to their outside interest groups through thick and thin and voted in lockstep against more Republican-appointed judges than Republicans have voted against Democrat-appointed judges. That has been by a landslide margin. The fact is, a majority of the Democrats voted in lockstep against Judge Bork and Justice Thomas. A majority of Democrats voted in lockstep against Justice Rehnquist when he was elevated to Chief Justice. On the other hand, Republicans voted overwhelmingly for President Clinton's two liberal nominees, Justices Ginsburg and Breyer. So I think my party has shown it is not wedded to the single-issue interest groups. My friends on the other side of the aisle are weaving revisionist history saying the more conservative Justices of the Court, such as Scalia and Thomas, are the ones who are really the judicial activists on the bench. But we all know this is just not true. The American people know what is really going on. The liberal leftwing interest groups and Senate enablers, as my friend, Senator Hatch, has sometimes called them, want to win in the courtroom what they cannot win in the ballot box. The Democrats have taken this to a new level. They are already talking about filibustering the next nominee, and we do not even know who that is yet. They are really the ones who are judicial activists. We should take care because the independence of the Federal judiciary is at stake. Our entire framework of government as we know it and was intended by the Framers is at stake. We are told the Democrats are laying the groundwork for the next Supreme Court nominee by sending a message, I presume, to the President and those of this party. These messages are an argument that Justice O'Connor must be replaced by a liberal or moderate, and that individual should be a woman or another minority, claiming the balance of the Court must be maintained at all costs. I hope I made this clear in my comments that Senator Lincoln listened to so closely, and that was that history takes care of a lot of this. Of the four liberals on the Supreme Court today, two were appointed by Republicans, President Ford and President Bush 1. The moderates, O'Connor and Kennedy, were appointed by a Republican President. So we do not know what we get. I wish we did. I wish we could predict 25 years from now, but we can't. The Democrats did not expect President Clinton to appoint a moderate judge to replace Justice Byron White. I remind my colleagues that Justice White was one of the two Justices who dissented in Roe v. Wade. We Republicans did not say: Well, Justice White is retiring so we need to make sure we appoint another person like Justice White to the Supreme Court. President Clinton wasn't elected to appoint people the Republicans wanted.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent for 3 or 4 more minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. So we get appointments such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, totally qualified to be on the Court. I voted for her; Justice Breyer, totally qualified to be on the Court, I voted for him. We did not try to second-guess President Clinton. Clearly, Justice Ginsburg does not share Justice White's philosophy. Yet Senate Republicans overwhelmingly confirmed her, with only three ``nay'' votes. The fact is, the President picked people they thought would be good Justices. The bottom line is we should not be thinking of liberal, conservative, or moderate judges--men or women for that matter. We ought to think of who is qualified. If you are qualified for the job, you ought to get the vote of the Senate. Someone who has the right temperament and integrity on the job is also a requirement. But these liberals I voted for have had that as well. Judge Roberts recognized this problem, politicizing the Federal bench, and in particular the Supreme Court, when some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle attempted to pin him down on certain litmus test questions at his nomination hearings. Judge Roberts said: [I]t is a very serious threat to the independence and integrity of the court to politicize them. I think that is not a good development to regard the courts as simply an extension of the political process. That's not what they are. Judge Roberts went on to say: Judges go on the bench and they apply and decide cases according to judicial process, not on the basis of promises made earlier to get elected and promises made earlier to get confirmed. That's inconsistent with the independence and integrity of the Supreme Court. I am in total agreement with that statement. So when Judge Roberts testifies his oath is to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States and that he won't impose a political or social agenda in his decisionmaking, that is what we need to hear. That is because the bottom line is, irrespective of Judge Roberts' impressive resume, brilliant intellect, and personal integrity, he would not be qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice unless he was truly willing and able to subject himself to that judicial restraint. Judge Roberts says his obligation is to the Constitution and that is his oath. He says he will not impose his personal views on the people but will make decisions in an impartial manner in accordance with the Constitution, the laws enacted by Congress. He says he will be modest in his judging and exercise judicial restraint. He says he will respect the limited role of a judge in society. That is the kind of Justice we need to see on the Supreme Court. That is the kind of Justice the Senate should support. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before the Senator from Arkansas goes, I do not have prepared remarks, but to try to put her a little bit at ease about these decisions that we have to make on the Supreme Court because they are very important decisions, I would reflect on some history. For instance, I probably had the same concerns about President Clinton and Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg when I voted for them. Regarding the political positions that Justice Ginsburg stood for in her life before coming to be a judge, I wouldn't agree with many of them. But she was totally qualified to be on the Supreme Court, and I voted for her based upon the proposition that Alexander Hamilton said that the purpose of our activities here of confirming people for the courts is basically two. Maybe there is some historian around who will say Grassley has it all wrong, but I think it was, No. 1, to make sure that people who were not qualified did not get on the courts. In other words, only qualified people get appointed to the courts and that political hacks do not get appointed to the courts. That is somebody who was around when the Constitution was written, and the Federalist Papers, stating those things about our role. So I have a fairly flexible point of view of how I ought to look at people, even those with whom I disagree. In regard to what the Senator said about hoping what President Bush would do, or what he has done in the past in regard to these appointments, I would want you to look at that as I looked at President Clinton being elected in 1992. I don't know whether court appointments were an issue in that campaign as they were in 2000 or 2004, but I assume that he had a mandate to appoint whom he wanted appointed, as long as they were not political hacks and as long as they were qualified. So I gave President Clinton that leeway. I am hoping that even more so with President Bush, since he made very clear to the people of this country that he was going to appoint strict constructionists and people who were not going to legislate from the bench. You may not like what he is doing, but he is doing exactly what he said he was going to do, and I hope that would enhance credibility to the American people of at least one more politician who keeps his word when he is in office. He appoints whom he said he was going to appoint, and that is what he is doing here. It should not be any surprise, and I hope he would be respected for doing that and have leeway in doing that, as long as they are not political hacks but they are qualified. The other one is, over a long period of time, to maybe take away some worry about whether or not we have to be concerned about this specific person doing exactly what he said he was going to do. I would refer to Judge Souter. I was thinking Judge Souter was maybe not exactly whom I would want on the Court, but he would be pretty close to it. During that debate--I think it was in committee and not on the floor--there was one of the Senators on your side, who I have named but I will not name him this time, who made this point about Justice Souter--that he didn't have respect for the right to privacy and then was a threat to Roe v. Wade. Here is one Republican who thought maybe Souter would work out OK, from my point of view. There was a Democrat over there who thought Souter would be a threat to Roe V. Wade. We were both wrong. So it is difficult to predict what people are going to do down the road, so you have to look at are they qualified. I don't have any doubt but that Judge Souter is qualified to be on the Court. But I misjudged him and this Democratic Senator also misjudged him. The other one is, if you worry about Republicans, to look at what they might appoint versus what Democrats might appoint, and you end up getting something from a Republican you don't like. I assume you are more to the liberal end than the conservative, and you have to stop to think that a Republican appointed John Paul Stevens and a Republican appointed Justice Souter, two of the four most liberal people on the Supreme Court. To some extent, you get what you want from a Republican President as much as you do from a Democratic President because the other two were appointed by President Clinton. Then, also, from a historical standpoint, time brings a great deal of balance to the Court. Justices change their views sometimes over a period of 25 or 30 years on the Court. Or Presidents that you might be thinking are appointing conservatives end up appointing liberals--they end up being liberals on the Supreme Court. History is going to bring balance to the Court. Right now, if Justice Roberts is appointed, we will have four liberals. I don't need to name them. Everyone understands who they are. You are going to have three conservatives: Roberts, Scalia and Thomas. And then you are going to have two moderates, Kennedy and O'Connor--O'Connor for a little while now. So you have some balance, but it is tilted a little bit more toward the liberal side than it is to the conservative side. Maybe, when President Bush gets done with this next nominee, there will be even more balance, four conservatives and four liberals and one moderate, Justice Kennedy left as a moderate. Then I keep thinking about what we ought to do if we want to bring balance to the Court, and I hear more about that on your side than I do on this side: Let's just say that Justice Ginsburg, obviously a woman, and Justice O'Connor is obviously a woman; we have two women, so maybe we ought to have a woman appointed to the Supreme Court. The liberal women of America have Justice Ginsburg as voting the way that they think Justices ought to vote. Maybe the conservative women of America are entitled to a seat on the Supreme Court. We might be fortunate enough to get appointed a very qualified woman who is also a strict constructionist. Then we would have one liberal woman and we would have one conservative woman on the Supreme Court, and we have even more balance brought to the Court. So you see history kind of takes care of these things. I hope 25 years from now--and you are a lot younger than I am and you will be around here 25 years from now--that you are satisfied that history will take care of all these problems that are brought up about what the Supreme Court might do 10 or 15 years from now.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague Senator Max Baucus in introducing the ``Medicare Cost-Sharing and Welfare Extension Act of 2005.'' This legislation extends the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, for 3 months and provides funding for 6 months of Transitional Medical Assistance, TMA, for families making the transition from welfare to work. As my colleagues know, H.R. 3672, which has been signed into law, would extend TANF until December 31, 2005, so this legislation represents a total extension of TANF until the end of March, 2006. This is the twelfth extension of TANF and related programs. Welfare reform reauthorization should have been passed years ago. Too many families are languishing on the welfare rolls and we are seeing a backsliding of the improvements that we saw in the early years, after welfare reform. Child care funding has remained stagnant. States have been operating their welfare programs under a cloud of uncertainty regarding what a final Federal welfare reauthorization bill would require of them. We need to make some critical reforms to build on the success of the 1996 bill and give States the ability to manage and plan for their welfare programs. I am hopeful that this represents the final short-term extension of TANF and that the Congress will act quickly to pass a comprehensive welfare bill. Additionally, this legislation includes a provision to extend cost- sharing assistance to qualifying individuals, QIs, for the Medicare Part B premium through September, 2006. This program has been helping vulnerable individuals with incomes between 120 and 135 percent of the Federal Poverty Level since 1997. It is estimated that the Part B premiums will cost a beneficiary $88.50 a month, an increase of $10.30 from the current $78.20 premium. For these low-income individuals, that represents a significant percentage of their monthly income. The President's budget includes a one year extension of the QI program. Both the QI and TANF programs provide critical support to individuals and families with children who are in need--folks who otherwise might not be able to get healthcare services or make ends meet. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague Senator Max Baucus in introducing the ``Medicare Cost-Sharing and Welfare Extension Act of 2005.'' This legislation extends the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, for 3 months and provides funding for 6 months of Transitional Medical Assistance, TMA, for families making the transition from welfare to work. As my colleagues know, H.R. 3672, which has been signed into law, would extend TANF until December 31, 2005, so this legislation represents a total extension of TANF until the end of March, 2006. This is the twelfth extension of TANF and related programs. Welfare reform reauthorization should have been passed years ago. Too many families are languishing on the welfare rolls and we are seeing a backsliding of the improvements that we saw in the early years, after welfare reform. Child care funding has remained stagnant. States have been operating their welfare programs under a cloud of uncertainty regarding what a final Federal welfare reauthorization bill would require of them. We need to make some critical reforms to build on the success of the 1996 bill and give States the ability to manage and plan for their welfare programs. I am hopeful that this represents the final short-term extension of TANF and that the Congress will act quickly to pass a comprehensive welfare bill. Additionally, this legislation includes a provision to extend cost- sharing assistance to qualifying individuals, QIs, for the Medicare Part B premium through September, 2006. This program has been helping vulnerable individuals with incomes between 120 and 135 percent of the Federal Poverty Level since 1997. It is estimated that the Part B premiums will cost a beneficiary $88.50 a month, an increase of $10.30 from the current $78.20 premium. For these low-income individuals, that represents a significant percentage of their monthly income. The President's budget includes a one year extension of the QI program. Both the QI and TANF programs provide critical support to individuals and families with children who are in need--folks who otherwise might not be able to get healthcare services or make ends meet. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Baucus, ranking Democrat of the committee that has jurisdiction over this issue of Medicaid, to urge passage of the Emergency Health Care Relief Act of 2005. He explained very well how we have worked out in a bipartisan way the contents of this legislation, not only between Senator Baucus and me but by involving the staff of everybody on the committee, as well as consulting, particularly, the Senators from Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. We are all very deeply moved by the pictures and by the stories of those from the States who have been hurt by Katrina--and now, of course, Rita--their homes, their jobs and, worst of all, their loved ones who have given up everything. My heart, of course, goes out, as well, to the others who have suffered as much as a result of this terrible disaster. I think the need to act is very obvious. About 250,000 people have been evacuated as a result of this disaster. According to a survey by the Washington Post, fully half of the evacuees have no health insurance. Four in ten of the evacuees are physically disabled or have chronic illness. According to a survey done by the same paper, 6 in 10 evacuees have incomes of less than $20,000. It is a function of our Government and our responsibility as legislators to provide assistance to these vulnerable families. I would like to briefly outline this legislation. The Katrina health care relief package is very targeted and, most importantly, temporary. It is both a targeted and temporary benefit for the neediest individuals and families. It provides assistance with private health insurance premiums for people in businesses affected by hurricanes so they won't lose their coverage; an uncompensated care funding pool to cover evacuation costs and emergency health care costs related to the hurricane; most importantly, temporary Medicaid coverage limited to 5 months, unless the President would extend it for another 5 months, limited to only those residents and evacuees from the hardest hit counties of the State; and 100 percent Federal funding for the disaster-related Medicaid costs until December 31, 2006. The compromise package bill limits Medicaid to those most in need: To those below the poverty level; pregnant women and children below 200 percent of poverty, which is current law in Texas already, as one example; and those eligible under the host State's Medicaid coverage under existing law. It is very limited. The bottom line is that this is a responsible compromise. It is time limited. It is targeted only to those who have the most need. The legislation includes a simplified enrollment procedure. One important part of our bill that I want to highlight would help those with private insurance pay premiums on their policy. Many of the folks affected by Katrina have private health insurance which they would like to keep. Many of the evacuees also have chronic conditions. For these folks, losing health insurance can mean the loss of important provider relationships. This legislation will help these folks avoid that situation. The legislation also offers help to certain employers who, prior to Katrina, offered their employees health insurance. We all know that many businesses face a difficult time in maintaining coverage. Now these businesses will be able to get back up and contribute to a revitalization of the economy in that area. Our bill would also waive the Medicaid Part B late enrollment penalty for those who miss the initial enrollment period. We don't want people to have opportunities to get into Part B enrollment only to have to pay a penalty when they wouldn't otherwise do that if we had not had the hurricane. I am pleased that Senator Baucus and I have been able to take action on behalf of those whose lives have been disrupted by the hurricane. As Senator Baucus said, the bill is supported by the Governors Association, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the Health Care Leadership Council, the American Red Cross, the March of Dimes, and many others. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation, and I urge swift Senate consideration of S. 1716. I would also like to point out some things more procedural than just the contents of the bill. As a reminder to all of my friends on this side of the aisle, the Wednesday after Labor Day we had a news conference assuring the people of this country--that news conference involved leadership, as well as those who are chairmen of the committee--promising appropriate as well as immediate relief for the States that are hurt. That hurting is extended beyond the States that were hit by the hurricane to States that have taken evacuees. I also point out that it is quite obvious from television the hurt that people have. Also, we tried to pretty much do a total paralleling of what we did for New York City after 9/11. Along that line, I remind my colleagues of something that President Bush said as he was speaking in a news conference about the hurricane not discriminating. We were not going to discriminate. It seems to me that doing for the people in this area hurt by this Katrina catastrophe ought to be done in the same way that we did to help people who were hurt by the New York City 9/11 catastrophe. Then, as a practical matter--and I don't say this just because Senator Lincoln is in the Chamber--I use her as an example of a lot of people who are trying to accomplish the goals that Senator Baucus and I want to accomplish, as she did on an appropriations bill by offering an amendment. That amendment went much further than what we do in this legislation. She withdrew that amendment. But I think there are people who are going to want to push those issues if we don't move in this comprehensive, bipartisan way that Senator Baucus and I have done. I remind colleagues that we might end up actually adopting a proposal much more expensive than S. 1716, if Senator Lincoln offers her amendment, than we do through this approach that we are taking here in the case of Senator Baucus and my working out this bipartisan agreement. I urge that we move forward with this legislation for the reasons that I have given, as well as the substance being a responsible approach. I would like to ask, if I could, unanimous consent that we move forward with this legislation. Then, if somebody wants to speak afterwards, speak afterwards on the subject. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we move immediately to the consideration of S. 1716.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, so far, the Finance Committee has put forth two Hurricane Katrina relief bills. One is the emergency tax relief bill passed today. The second is the health and welfare bill introduced last Thursday. And we're working on a third bill to help rebuild and rejuvenate the Gulf region. Today I met with Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour to hear about the needs of people in the Katrina area, both now and in the future. In addition to Senator Baucus, I've been working with my colleagues from Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama, including the cosponsors of this tax bill--Senators Lott, Landrieu, Vitter, Cochran and Shelby. For the next package, we're taking ideas from these senators. I've talked with Senator Vitter, Senator Lott and Senator Landrieu about tax incentives and expect to talk with the rest of the group in the coming days. We've had the biggest natural disaster in history. People are hurting, and we're getting them help. We know that tax incentives helped to revitalize New York after 9/11. They can do the same for New Orleans, Gulfport and the other hurricane- hit areas. The immediate relief package will help get short-term aid to hurricane victims by encouraging food donations and the employment of displaced individuals, for example. For those who've suffered casualty losses, we've liberalized the tax rules to permit affected taxpayers to deduct losses from damaged property. We also want to help protect Katrina victims from undeserved IRS harassment. It's good that the House and Senate quickly worked out minor differences in our respective versions of the bill. We need to get these tax incentives on the books and help Katrina victims make a fresh start. The President is working to restore a high quality of life to the people of the gulf region, and today we're contributing a solid piece of legislation to his effort. After this package is completed, our focus will be on longer-term tax incentives to help rebuild homes and businesses. We're looking at depreciation changes, tax-exempt bond authority, tax-exempt bond refunding, and enterprise-zone initiatives. In the coming days and weeks, the Finance Committee will be examining these ideas with an eye toward the most effective and efficient use of the taxpayer's dollar. The more thoughtful we are, and the more expeditiously we act, the sooner the people of the gulf region can return home, earn a living, and rebuild their communities.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 15, 2005, to mark up the following bills: Committee Print of S. 1182, Chairman Larry E. Craig, the ``Veterans Health Care Improvements Act of 2005,'' incorporating original provisions and provisions derived from S. 1182, as introduced; S. 1177; S. 1189; and S. 1190; and S. 716, Ranking Member Daniel K. Akaka, the ``Vet Center Enhancement Act of 2005. The markup will take place in Room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 10 a.m.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, September 15, 2005, at 10:30 a.m. to consider the nominations of Stewart A. Baker to be Assistant Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, and Julie L. Myers to be Assistant Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on the nomination of John G. Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States on Thursday, September 15, 2005 at 9:30 a.m., in the Hart Senate Office Building Room 216. Witness List Panel I: Stephen L. Tober, Esq., Chairman, American Bar Association, Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, Portsmouth, NH; Tom Hayward, Esq., Past-Chairman, American Bar Association, Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, Chicago, IL; Pamela A. Bresnahan, Esq., DC Circuit Representative, American Bar Association, Washington, DC. Panel II: The Honorable Dick Thornburgh, Former Attorney General of the United States, Former Governor of Pennsylvania, Counsel, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham, Washington, DC; The Honorable John Lewis, United States House of Representatives, D-GA-5th District; Jennifer Cabranes Braceras, Esq., Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and Visiting Fellow at the Independent Women's Forum, Boston, MA; Wade Henderson, Executive Director, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Washington, DC; Peter Kirsanow, Esq., Partner, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplay & Aronoff and Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Cleveland, OH; The Honorable Nathaniel Jones, Retired Judge, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to the Sixth Circuit, Of Counsel, Blank Rome LLP, Cincinnati, OH. Panel III: Maureen E. Mahoney, Esq., Partner, Latham & Watkins, Washington, DC; Carol M. Browner, Former Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Principal, The Albright Group, Washington, DC; Kathryn Webb Bradley, Esq., Senior Lecturing Fellow, Duke Law School, Durham, NC; Anne Marie Tallman, President and General Counsel, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Los Angeles, CA; The Honorable Denise Posse-Blanco Lindberg, Judge, Third Judicial District Court, State of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Reginald M. Turner, Jr., President, National Bar Association, Detroit, MI. Panel IV: Catherine E. Stetson, Esq., Partner, Hogan & Hartson, Washington, DC; Marcia Greenberger, Co-President, National Women's Law Center, Washington, DC; The Honorable Bruce Botelho, Former Attorney General, State of Alaska, Mayor of Juneau, Juneau, AK; Rockerick Jackson, Coach, Ensley High School, Birmingham, AL; Henrietta Wright, Esq., Of Counsel, Goldberg, Godles, Wiener and Wright and Chairman of the Board Dallas Children's Advocacy Center, Dallas, TX; Beverly Jones, Lafayette, TN. Panel V: The Honorable Charles Fried, Former Solicitor General of the United States, Beneficial Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, Cambidge, MA: Peter B. Edelman, Professor of Law; Co-Director, Joint Degree in Law and Public Policy, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC; Patricia L. Bellia, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School, South Bend, IN; Judith Resnik, Arthur Liman Professor of Law, Yale Law School, New Haven, CT; Christopher S. Yoo, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School, Nashville, TN; David Strauss, Harry N. Wyatt Professor of Law; University of Chicago Law School, Chicago, IL. Panel VI: Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Washington, DC; Robert Reich, University Professor and Maurice B. Hexter, Professor of Social and Economic Policy, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA; Rabbi Dale Polakoff, President, Rabbinical Council of America, Great Neck, NY; Susan Thistlethwaite, President, Chicago Theological Seminary, Chicago, IL; The Honorable John Engler, Former Governor of Michigan, President, National Association of Manufacturers, Washington, DC; Karen Pearl, Interim President, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, New York, NY.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 15, 2005, at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing on U.S.- Indonesia Relations.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I understand that the Senator would like assurances that her State would not be penalized for failure to reimburse the Federal Government for funds to the State from the Federal Loans for State Welfare Program. I would point out that the House bill includes a provision that provides that no penalty may be imposed against the States of Louisiana, Mississippi or Alabama for failure to repay a loan made to a State before October 1, 2007. This provision provides that there will be no penalty for loans made during that time. Furthermore, I appreciate the other comments from the Senator from Louisiana. While I think that the House passed bill represents a good faith effort on behalf of the House, I agree that it does not go far enough and that the delegations of the affected States should have been consulted as this bill was assembled. The collaborative process that we relied on with Senators from States directly affected by Hurricane Katrina has been invaluable as we have worked to assemble the disaster relief package that Senator Baucus and I announced yesterday. I also recognize that my colleagues are concerned that the Senate's position on this issue be appropriately represented in a conference with the House. I want to assure my colleagues these welfare provisions will be addressed during a conference with the House and that the Senate's position on these welfare provisions will be vigorously represented.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendments Nos. 1719 through 1721, En Bloc

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, what I have tried to do in this second-degree amendment is correct some flaws in the Dorgan amendment. My amendment is also meant to ensure that we maintain the strength of our trade remedy laws. My amendment makes it clear that no funds may be used to negotiate trade agreements that do not enable the United States to preserve our ability to enforce rigorously our trade laws, including antidumping and safeguard laws. Quite obviously, if we have laws on our books to protect our economy from unfair competition, every Senator wants to make sure those laws are rigorously enforced, including antidumping and safeguard laws. In addition, under my amendment, our trade negotiators must avoid agreements that lessen the effectiveness of domestic and international disciplines on unfair trade, especially for dumping and subsidies. This pertains to a situation if they would lessen the effectiveness of domestic and international safeguard provisions. My amendment is a good amendment which will ensure our trade remedy laws remain strong and that U.S. workers have effective protection against unfair import competition. The underlying amendment I am amending, the Dorgan amendment No. 1665, purports to do the same thing. And it might. But it also has some very serious--and perhaps, hopefully, unintended--consequences. The Dorgan amendment says no funds may be used ``to negotiate or enter into a trade agreement that modifies or amends any law of the United States that provides safeguards from unfair foreign trade practices. . . .'' Now, that sounds pretty good. But if you look at this amendment a little deeper, you can see that it has serious problems. Such a sweeping amendment would prohibit our negotiators from entering into trade agreements even if the trade agreement resulted in stronger trade remedy laws. For example, if we could not negotiate bilateral agricultural safeguards similar to those we have recently negotiated in our bilateral agreements with Chile and Australia--and these are only two examples--or maybe even in the plurilateral agreement, such as passed by the Senate, CAFTA--we could not negotiate multilateral agreements such as the OECD steel negotiations that could strengthen our trade remedy laws. At the same time, the Dorgan amendment would severely hamper our ability to negotiate trade agreements that benefit U.S. exporters. Now, that may be a well-intended position of my friend from the agricultural State of North Dakota--and I work with him on a lot of agricultural legislation--but it is a slippery path where we cannot even discuss trade remedies even if those discussions end up strengthening some of these remedies, such as in the case of CAFTA and Australia and Chile. It will happen that our trade partners will respond by demanding other items be taken off the table. In other words, once we go to the table in good faith to negotiate, and we start saying, ``This is not negotiable, that is not negotiable,'' then you could understand that trading partners are all going to have their pet projects off the table. If we want to negotiate strengthening some remedies, as we did in the case of Australia, Chile, we could not do that. So I am trying to correct some of the inadequacies within this amendment. Of course, when you start getting things taken off the table--the United States takes something off; the European Union takes something off; India takes something off--it has to have all items on the table in order to protect the economic interests of the United States. Particularly I found that going back to the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, you had to have everything on the table to win any benefit for American agriculture. The amendment by my friend from North Dakota would only serve to hamstring our negotiators, particularly if those negotiators want to strengthen our positions, as we did in Australia and Chile. And this amendment would be doing it at a time just as we are pushing the Europeans, we are pushing the Brazilians, we are pushing the G20 group, the G10 group--and for that matter I think we are pushing every other G-numbered group you can think of--to get some help for the American economy, which comes from negotiations to get down trade barriers, to get all of these groups, Europeans, Brazilians, G20, G10, G-everybody, serious and start making meaningful concessions in these negotiations, especially for the benefit of American agriculture. Today, foreign agricultural markets are among the most protected sectors in world trade. Global tariffs on agriculture average about 62 percent. The United States, I believe, is about 11 percent. Thus, America's farmers and ranchers have much to gain if we can deliver a comprehensive, multilateral trade agreement that lowers tariffs across the board and forces subsidizing nations to harmonize and reduce their tariffs. Let me quantify that: 62-percent worldwide average of tariffs up here of other countries; the United States at 11 percent down here. We bring these other countries down to ours, or down part way to ours; or if we bring ours down lower, as they bring theirs down lower. Common sense dictates a win-win situation for our farmers. Because of some of these concerns as to the Dorgan amendment that I have raised about maybe the inability to even strengthen some of our trade remedies, as we did in Australia and Chile, many groups have been concerned. This amendment by my distinguished friend from North Dakota has been before the Senate now for about 4 days, so a lot of other groups have written to me about their opposition because they are concerned about it: the American Farm Bureau, the Business Roundtable, Coalition of Service Industries, the Comprehensive Market Access Coalition, the Emergency Committee for American Trade, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Foreign Trade Council, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Council for International Business, and, lastly--and one that is very important to the upper Midwest--the Corn Refiners Association. All of these groups I have listed have expressed their strong opposition to the Dorgan amendment and I would hope would be satisfied with the amendment I have put before the Senate. Even more important than those who want this bill to become law, the administration has weighed in strongly against the Dorgan amendment. I would like to quote from a letter I received from our Commerce Secretary, Mr. Gutierrez, and our U.S. Trade Representative, former Congressman and now Ambassador Rob Portman: . . . Senator Dorgan's amendment would undermine our efforts to protect our workers and firms from unfair trade practices and to open foreign markets to America's goods and services. . . . the amendment would prevent us from negotiating agreements to improve protections against unfair trade practices where the current rules may not be fully effective. Then they go on to say: The amendment could also prevent us from negotiating stronger disciplines on foreign subsidies and protections for U.S. exporters against abuses by foreign users of trade remedy laws. In fact, the Secretary and the Ambassador feel so strongly about the damages this amendment could do, they sent a letter saying they would recommend that the President veto the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill if the Dorgan amendment is included. So the bottom line: the choice is pretty simple. If Senators want to take away an opportunity to strengthen trade remedy laws, in effect, hamper our negotiators, and at the same time ensure a veto of this bill, a veto of a bill that is very important, then support the Dorgan amendment. But if Senators want to preserve strong trade remedy laws, and even opportunities to make them stronger, and avoid a veto, then please support my second-degree amendment. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the stakes in this vote. I think the stakes are high. There is a way to both preserve and improve our trade remedy laws, also a way of avoiding a Presidential veto, and that would be voting for my amendment No. 1713, which is a second- degree amendment to the Dorgan amendment No. 1665. I do not know whether the Senator from North Dakota intended to not give our negotiators an opportunity to strengthen our trade remedy laws, as we did in Australia and Chile, but my amendment will take care of that oversight. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment, No. 1, because Commerce Secretary Gutierrez and Mr. Portman, our Trade Representative, have said they are going to recommend a veto of the bill if the Dorgan amendment is adopted. Also, I have these organizations that have sent a letter in opposition to the amendment. The organizations include the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Peanut Product Manufacturers, Inc., the American Soybean Association, the Corn Refiners Association, the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, the Food Products Association, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the International Dairy Foods Association, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Chicken Council, the National Corn Growers Association, et cetera, et cetera--with about eight more I could read. We have adopted my amendment now. We have a policy that is broad to make sure things are not weakened, but if they want to be strengthened, they can be strengthened, as well, as we don't take a lot of things off the negotiating table. If we are going to be successful in agriculture, we have to have a broad number of issues on the table to get any success for agriculture.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request for a piece of legislation that is within my jurisdiction, and then, also, as a favor to another person, to make a unanimous consent request. Before I make that unanimous consent request, I would like to make a short statement, and then have Senator Baucus make a short statement before I proceed to the unanimous consent request. May I go ahead?

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as I said, I have another request I want to do for other Members.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be agreed to, that the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that the bill be held at the desk.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3649, which was received from the House.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be agreed to, that the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.