Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree with the Senator's understanding of the IRS's authority to consult with DOE in this regard, and to establish an equivalent level of efficiency for dishwashers for determining the amount of the credit. section 1503

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I rise in support of Tom Dorr, the President's nominee for Under Secretary of Rural Development at USDA. Tom is a fourth generation ``dirt under the fingernails'' family farmer. He has also been a small businessman and understands the demands and challenges of doing business in rural America. Tom Dorr is a family man, having been married to Ann for 35 years. They have a son and a married daughter and a beautiful granddaughter, all who live in Iowa. Tom is a community leader, having served as the chairman of the board for the Heartland Care Center, a cooperative care center in Marcus. Tom was instrumental in starting the Iowa Corn Growers Association and served in various leadership roles before moving on to leadership at the National Corn Growers Association. Tom served on the board of the Chicago Federal Reserve and has also served on the Iowa Board of Regents, which is truly one of the most prestigious jobs in our State, a position now held by the wife of my Senate partner from Iowa, Tom Harkin. Mrs. Harkin serves on that prestigious body. Tom's leadership ability has been demonstrated and utilized to the benefit of his community and our State time and time again. Tom has dedicated a good portion of his life to serving Iowa's rural population and improving Iowa's rural economy. Tom Dorr has the financial expertise and business savvy required to run an organization as large and complicated as USDA's Rural Development. Rural Development is basically a large bank, with a loan portfolio of almost $90 billion. That is as big as Wells Fargo or Chase Manhattan and bigger than most of the banks in America. This agency has 7,000 employees located in over 800 offices across the country. Not just any person can move from the farm and smoothly take over an organization of this size. But Tom Dorr did exactly that. Tom Dorr ran Rural Development as the Under Secretary for 16 months--from August 2002 until December 2003. Because of Tom's recess appointment, we have the unique opportunity to examine his track record. I have heard from many people at USDA about Tom Dorr's accomplishments. This news doesn't come only from other political appointees, it also comes from career staff and groups who originally had concerns. Folks tell me about his leadership, his vision, his intellect and most importantly, his commitment to rural America. When I hear of comments like this from his peers and those who worked with him, I take particular note. Let me describe a few of Tom's accomplishments while he was the Under Secretary for Rural Development: No. 1, he expedited the release of $762 million of water and wastewater infrastructure funds provided in the 2002 farm bill in just 3 months. No. 2, he led the effort to complete the rulemaking process in order that the $1.5 billion broadband program could begin taking applications this year. He believes that if Americans are to live locally and compete globally, that it is as imperative to wire the country for technology access as it was to provide electricity nationwide 60 years ago. No. 3, in order to facilitate the review of $37 million in value- added development grants, he creatively used private sector resources to expedite the process. No. 4, in order to deliver the financial grants authorized through the Delta Regional Authority, he helped develop and get signed a memorandum of understanding between Rural Development and the Delta Regional Authority. This will allow Rural Development to assist in delivering joint projects at no added cost to the Delta Regional Authority. No. 5, he facilitated the development of a memorandum of understanding, signed by Secretaries Veneman and Martinez, between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, that is focused on better serving housing and infrastructure needs. No. 6, he has developed a series of initiatives with HUD that will allow Rural Development to more cost effectively meet the housing needs of rural America. These have allowed USDA to provide greater access for rural American housing, but especially minorities living in rural America in fulfillment of the President's housing initiative. No. 7, he has initiated a review of the Multi-family Housing Program. This includes the hiring of an outside contractor to conduct a comprehensive property assessment to evaluate the physical condition, market position, and operational status of the more than 17,000 properties USDA has financed, all while determining how best to meet the needs of low-income citizens throughout rural America. No. 8, he has initiated a major outreach program to insure that USDA's Rural Development programs are more easily made available to all qualified individuals, communities, and organizations. This marketing and branding initiative has also played an important role in changing the attitude of employees to concentrate on customer service and proactive outreach, with emphasis on reaching out to minorities. Although this is an incomplete list of his accomplishments, it is easy to see that as Under Secretary, Tom Dorr did a great job in the short 15 months he served at Rural Development. Clearly, I support Tom and believe he is the right person for the job, but let me read a few comments from the folks that worked with Tom when he was Under Secretary. First is the Mortgage Bankers Association, a much respected national organization in the banking industry: We support Mr. Dorr's nomination as Under Secretary for Rural Development because we have found him to be an engaged leader with a true commitment to the housing and community development needs of rural America--Jonathan L. Kempner, President/CEO. This organization certainly is able to recognize if someone has the ability to understand the financial issues and have the skills needed to run USDA Rural Development. The next quote is from the Council for Affordable and Rural Housing, a very respected organization serving the housing industry. On behalf of our members throughout the country, we are writing to you today in support of the nomination of Thomas C. Dorr to be the Under Secretary for Rural Development . . . There is a need for strong leadership and determination to forge long-term solutions to preserving this important investment in rural housing--Robert Rice, Jr., President, Council for Affordable and Rural Housing. I have many more letters, probably 50 or more, from organizations all across the country asking us to confirm Mr. Dorr. In addition, I have a letter signed by many of the leading national agricultural organizations such as the National Corn Growers Association and American Farm Bureau Federation. There is another issue that I feel compelled to address today. During the 2002 hearing and in the floor debate in the Senate, concerns were expressed regarding Tom's position on minority issues. I would like to reference letters for the record this morning that should alleviate any lingering concerns. These letters are from minority organization leaders expressing their support for Tom Dorr's confirmation. The first letter is from the Federation of Southern Cooperatives. You may recall that they had a representative testify against Mr. Dorr at the 2002 Hearing. I will read a quote from their executive director, Ralph Page: I am personally endorsing Tom Dorr's nomination because of his deep interest in rural development. He has made several visits to the communities within the Federation's network and has a great understanding of the needs of rural poor communities. He is the man for the job Here is another one: Mr. Dorr [has] made great accomplishments in the position and has earned the trust from rural Americans to carry out this mission--Dexter L. Davis, President, Northeast Louisiana Black Farmers and Landowners Associations. Here is another one: I met Mr. Dorr in Washington, DC, when he was serving as the acting Under Secretary for Rural Development and was impressed with his passion for small farmers. Quite frankly, when I first met Tom, I was not expecting him to be particularly supportive of our needs. But over the years that we have worked together, I have found him to be a great ally and a tireless fighter for the causes that we both support-- Calvin R. King Sr., President/CEO, Arkansas Land and Farm Development Corporation. Here is another one: We hold Mr. Dorr as a valuable asset to our organization and its future. He is one of the individuals that has played a major role in bridging the gap between the small limited resource and minority producers for our organization and the USDA--Fernando Burkett, Black Farmers & Agriculturalists Association, Arkansas Chapter. I have many more letters that I could read, but I think it is easy to understand the point. Thankfully, these organizations were concerned enough to come forward after they had a chance to get to know and work with Tom. In addition, I also want to read portions of a letter to Mr. Dorr by Dr. Dennis Keeney, the former head of the Leopold Center at Iowa State University. Many of you will recall Dr. Keeney was asked to testify against Mr. Dorr in 2002: I write to apologize for appearing at your hearing in 2002. It was something I should have said no to right off, but did not. Then it sort of drug on and I had to go through with the appearance or lose face. That still did not make it right. . . . It was during the reading of this book (The Natural, the Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton) that I realized that I had become part of the mudslinging and character assassination. This is not the type of legacy I would like to leave. You have been misunderstood, and made a poster child for big agriculture. I am sure that has not particularly bothered you. But, I have not been proud of my little part in helping paint that picture--Dr. Dennis Keeney, Emeritus Professor, Iowa State University, in a letter to Tom Dorr, June 25, 2003. I thank Dr. Keeney for sharing this letter and for setting the record straight. In closing, I ask my colleagues to set aside the politics of the past and concentrate on the real issues affecting rural America and what Tom Dorr would do if confirmed for this important job at USDA. We have neglected our duty by going 4 years without having a confirmed Under Secretary for Rural Development at USDA. We have had four different individuals serving in the Under Secretary position, and none of them were confirmed by the Senate. That is not a good way to run a business, or a large and complicated agency as important to our States as USDA Rural Development. Tom has been under a microscope since his original nomination and everyone who has looked in the lense has offered glowing praise for his work and accomplishments. Thankfully, we do not need to speculate about whether Tom would do a good job or not, Tom has already demonstrated he has done and will likely continue to do a great job for rural America in the role of Rural Development Under Secretary. How often do we actually get to judge a nominee by their proficiency in the job? Tom is a sure thing. Rural America is regaining its economic, social and cultural momentum. It would be a shame to deprive it of leadership at this critical juncture. We have a unique second chance today. I hope we will set aside our differences and do what is best for our rural citizens, our States, and our country.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator is asking to speak on the nomination?

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Today I am pleased to introduce the Tax Technical Corrections Act of 2005 with Senator Baucus. Technical corrections measures are routine for major tax acts, and are necessary to ensure that the provisions of the acts are working consistently with the originally enacted provisions, or to provide clerical corrections. Because these measures carry out Congressional intent, no revenue gain or loss is scored from them. Technical corrections are derived from a deliberative and consultative process among the Congressional and administration tax staffs. That means the Republican and Democratic staffs of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees are involved as is the Treasury Department staff. All of this work is performed with the participation and guidance of the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation staff. A technical enters the list only if all staffs agree it is appropriate. The process and test for technical corrections ensures that only provisions narrowly drawn to carry out Congressional intent are included. Unfortunately, some press reports have distorted the technical corrections bill. These reports unfairly characterize this technical corrections bill as a re-opening of substantive tax policy of settled tax legislation. While it is true that interested parties are heard on purported technical corrections, only measures that all staffs agree are purely technical are included in the bill. Clarifications or substantive changes to provisions are not considered technical corrections. This is an important distinction that the press reports unfortunately did not make. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Today I am pleased to introduce the Tax Technical Corrections Act of 2005 with Senator Baucus. Technical corrections measures are routine for major tax acts, and are necessary to ensure that the provisions of the acts are working consistently with the originally enacted provisions, or to provide clerical corrections. Because these measures carry out Congressional intent, no revenue gain or loss is scored from them. Technical corrections are derived from a deliberative and consultative process among the Congressional and administration tax staffs. That means the Republican and Democratic staffs of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees are involved as is the Treasury Department staff. All of this work is performed with the participation and guidance of the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation staff. A technical enters the list only if all staffs agree it is appropriate. The process and test for technical corrections ensures that only provisions narrowly drawn to carry out Congressional intent are included. Unfortunately, some press reports have distorted the technical corrections bill. These reports unfairly characterize this technical corrections bill as a re-opening of substantive tax policy of settled tax legislation. While it is true that interested parties are heard on purported technical corrections, only measures that all staffs agree are purely technical are included in the bill. Clarifications or substantive changes to provisions are not considered technical corrections. This is an important distinction that the press reports unfortunately did not make. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to explain my recent action related to S. 1418, the Wired for Health Care Quality Act. Today, with great reluctance, I asked Leader Frist to consult with us prior to any action related to consideration of this bill, which the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee reported by voice vote this morning. The Wired for Health Care Quality Act would promote the use of electronic health records by adopting standards for the electronic exchange of information, offer incentives for health care providers to create networks for secure exchange of electronic health information, and ensure quality measurement and reporting of provider performance under the Public Health Service Act. I fully support linking the adoption of health information technology to quality improvements in our health care system. They go hand in hand. Which is why Senator Baucus and I decided to introduce our Medicare Value Purchasing Act, S. 1356, jointly with Senators Enzi and Kennedy's Better Healthcare Through Information Technology Act, S. 1355. The thought behind a dual introduction was to enforce the message that Medicare can drive quality improvement through payment incentives, and that the adoption of information technology is also a necessary step not only to facilitate the reporting of quality measures but also to increase efficiency and quality in our health care delivery system. Our bill creates quality payments under Medicare for all provider groups. A considerable amount of time was devoted towards ensuring that the development of quality measures and the implementation of value- based purchasing programs under Medicare were properly vetted with provider groups, beneficiary groups, and the administration. We did not want to reinvent the wheel; we wanted to build on the initiatives that already exist to develop and adopt quality measures. And because Medicare is the single largest purchaser of health care in the Nation, adopting quality payments in Medicare influences the level of quality in all of health care. We have seen time and time again how when Medicare leads, the other public and private purchasers follow. Which is why I am troubled, that as currently drafted, S. 1418 would require the development of quality measures under the Public Health Service Act. It is hard to comprehend how the quality measurement system in this bill intersects with the quality measurement system developed in the Medicare Value Purchasing Act. The last thing we want to do is end up with two different quality measurement systems. This has the potential to derail both proposals, effectively terminating or at least postponing the common goal of improving the quality of patient care. The Wired for Health Care Quality Act would also direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services, along with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and other heads of relevant Federal agencies to jointly develop a quality measurement system. The coordination among all these Federal agencies alone is a massive project that could indefinitely stall the development and implementation of appropriate quality measures or result in one that falls to the lowest common denominator. That could actually set back quality efforts. I welcome the opportunity to work with the sponsors of S. 1418, Senators Enzi, Kennedy, Frist, and Clinton along with members of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on this matter. I had hoped to accomplish that before the bill was introduced on the floor. Unfortunately, that did not happen. I do not take actions such as these lightly. But I am deeply troubled that, as currently drafted, the Wired for Health Care Quality Act could end up unintentionally delaying our common goal of improving the quality of health care for all Americans.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to salute an extraordinary native Iowan who has fallen in service to his country in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. PFC Eric P. Woods, of the 2nd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, died on the 9th day of July, 2005, in Tal Afar, Iraq, due to injuries sustained when an explosive device detonated under his vehicle. Woods, a combat medic was killed en route to aid an injured soldier. My prayers go out to his wife Jamie, his 3- year-old son Eric Scott, his parents Charles and Janis Woods, and his many other friends and family. Eric Woods grew up in Urbandale, IA, and was an active member in the youth group at Westchester Evangelical Free Church. At Urbandale High School he wrestled and played football and baseball before graduating in 1997. While attending Iowa State University, he became manager of Krause Gentle Company. After a move to Omaha, Eric became a medic in the U.S. Army. Private First Class Woods was a truly thoughtful soldier, requesting packages from home containing soccer balls, candy, and toys to give out to the children of Iraq. He will be remembered not only for his sacrifice for freedom but also the way in which he served, giving his life on the way to help an injured fellow soldier. Recently, his pastor said of Eric: ``His motto was to charge, not retreat. He squeezed the most out of life.'' Again my thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends. I ask my colleagues in the Senate and all Americans to remember with gratitude and admiration this courageous Iowan, PFC Eric P. Woods.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to offer an amendment. Before I send it to the desk, I want to speak to the amendment. In March of 2004, the Export-Import Bank approved the issuance of $9.87 million in taxpayer-guaranteed credit insurance to help Angostura Holdings Limited, of Trinidad and Tobago, to finance the construction of an ethanol dehydration plant in Trinidad. The purpose of this credit insurance was to enable Angostura to purchase equipment to be used to dehydrate up to 100 million gallons of Brazilian ethanol annually. Angostura would then reexport the resulting dehydrated ethanol to the United States duty free under the current Caribbean Basin Initiative Trade Preference Program. The credit insurance approval, however, had one major flaw. It appeared to violate the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute. I want to explain that statute. Section 635(e) of the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute--that is the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945--states that the bank is not to provide credit or financial guarantees to expand production of commodities for export to the United States if the resulting production capacity is expected to compete with U.S. production of the same commodity and the extension of such credit will cause substantial injury--I emphasize ``substantial injury''--to U.S. producers of the same commodity. The statute goes on to provide that ``the extension of any credit or guarantee by the Bank will cause substantial injury if the amount of the capacity for production established, or the amount of the increase in such capacity expanded, by such credit or guarantee equals or exceeds 1 percent of United States production,'' with emphasis upon exceeding 1 percent of United States production. I want to go back to last year then. As of last year, when the credit guarantees for Angostura were approved, the total 100 million gallon capacity of the Angostura facility was nearly 4 percent of U.S. production. This amount clearly then exceeds the 1 percent threshold for causing substantial injury to the U.S. ethanol industry as spelled out in the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute. I want to make clear, we are not talking about changing existing policy. We are talking about not letting somebody use subterfuge to get around existing law. It appeared to me that the approval of credit guarantees for Angostura by the Export-Import Bank violated the bank's authorizing statute. Moreover, as the amount financed by the Export- Import Bank was less than $10 million--remember, we are talking about $9.87 million--there was no detailed economic impact analysis conducted by the bank. So it seems to me they were conveniently under the $10 million threshold as a way of muddying the waters, camouflaging this transaction, not drawing attention, not even taking their official look at the requirements of the statute by being about $130,000 under the $10 million threshold, hoping that somehow this would get by without our finding out about it. In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, Congress asked the Export-Import Bank for an explanation of the credit guarantees for Angostura. Specifically, the 2005 Act required the Export-Import Bank to submit a report to the Committees of Appropriations of the Senate and the House containing an analysis of the economic impact on U.S. ethanol producers of the extension of credit and financial guarantees for the development of the ethanol dehydration plant in Trinidad and Tobago. Congress also required that this report determine whether such an extension will cause substantial injury to such producers, as defined in section 2(e)(4) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945. In January of this year, the Export-Import Bank provided its report. In its report, the Export-Import Bank skirted around the issue of whether its credit guarantees for Angostura caused substantial injury to U.S. producers, and thus whether the approval of these guarantees was in compliance with the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute. The Export-Import Bank skirted the issue by claiming that the Angostura plant will not ``produce'' dehydrated ethanol. Rather, the Export- Import Bank stated that this plant will merely ``process'' dehydrated ethanol by removing water from wet ethanol produced in Brazil, thus merely ``adding value'' to the wet ethanol from Brazil. The Export-Import Bank's response to Congress was, to be polite, a curious one. The Export-Import Bank's linguistic gymnastics aside, Angostura's plant will clearly be producing dehydrated ethanol. This is common sense. An ethanol dehydration plant--of course--produces dehydrated ethanol. Moreover, the Customs Service recognizes that ethanol dehydration plants in Caribbean Basin Initiative countries produce dehydrated ethanol. From what I can see, the Export-Import Bank's approval of credit guarantees for Angostura's ethanol plant violated the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute by causing substantial injury to U.S. producers of the same commodity, in violation of the law. Accordingly, it is only right that no further funds should be provided for this facility. My amendment would simply provide that no funds made available under the 2006 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act may be used by the Export-Import Bank to approve or administer a loan or guarantee for Angostura's ethanol dehydration plant. The credit guarantees for Angostura were improperly approved. Angostura, and ultimately Brazilian ethanol producers, should not continue to benefit from credit guarantees that were improperly provided by this bank. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I send the amendment to the desk and ask that it be read.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment for the purpose of offering an amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have considered Dr. Crawford's experience and performance on the job for well over a year now. In fact, Dr. Crawford has been the man in charge at FDA since I began taking a hard look at the FDA. It has been a long year for the FDA and I have taken a long look at Dr. Crawford's efforts to address FDA's problems. I know Dr. Crawford is intimately familiar with how the FDA operates. He has twice served as acting Commissioner, most recently since March 2004, and his lengthy service at the FDA is commendable. Dr. Crawford and I have met on a couple occasions. He is a gentleman and seems to have the best of intentions. He told me personally that he understands there are problems at the FDA that need to be fixed. I believed at one point that he was capable of fixing those problems. However, as the saying goes, ``the proof is in the pudding.'' Today, I am here to say that I cannot vote for Dr. Crawford to be the next Commissioner of the FDA. During the last 18 months, this country's confidence in the FDA has been shaken. It has been shaken not because of one isolated incident or one isolated whistleblower. It has been shaken because multiple drug safety concerns have been exposed by more than one courageous whistleblower. My oversight of the FDA leads me to the conclusion that there are cultural and systemic problems at the FDA. Unfortunately, Dr. Crawford has long been part of that same culture and system. The evidence is overwhelming that the FDA must change to better protect the American people. Dr. Crawford does not appear willing to be the man to change the FDA. During Dr. Crawford's tenure, I have witnessed the suppression of the scientific process and the muzzling of scientific dissent. First, with Dr. Mosholder finding a link between anti-depressants, children and suicide. And second with Dr. Graham's allegations regarding the FDA, Vioxx and post-marketing safety generally. Dr. Graham's testimony before the Finance Committee suggests that the problems are systemic. Oversight of the FDA exposed the cozy relationship that exists between the FDA and the drug industry. It revealed that the FDA negotiated for almost 2 years with Merck about how to change the Vioxx label so people would know about the risk of heart attacks. But the problems are not isolated to the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. My staff continues to interview FDA staff across the agency, employees who are doing important work on drugs, devices, and biologics. It is becoming more and more obvious to me that FDA is plagued by structural, personnel, cultural, and scientific problems. Those problems should be equally obvious to Dr. Crawford. But under the leadership of Dr. Crawford, the FDA appears to be in a state of denial. Over the past 18 months, Dr. Crawford has not stepped up to the plate. I have seen no recognition of the depth and breadth of the problems at the FDA. I have only seen a few short-term band-aids. The systemic problems at the FDA demand visionary leadership. Dr. Crawford has not shown me that he is the leader to fix the FDA.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment for the purpose of offering an amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to offer an amendment. Before I send it to the desk, I want to speak to the amendment. In March of 2004, the Export-Import Bank approved the issuance of $9.87 million in taxpayer-guaranteed credit insurance to help Angostura Holdings Limited, of Trinidad and Tobago, to finance the construction of an ethanol dehydration plant in Trinidad. The purpose of this credit insurance was to enable Angostura to purchase equipment to be used to dehydrate up to 100 million gallons of Brazilian ethanol annually. Angostura would then reexport the resulting dehydrated ethanol to the United States duty free under the current Caribbean Basin Initiative Trade Preference Program. The credit insurance approval, however, had one major flaw. It appeared to violate the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute. I want to explain that statute. Section 635(e) of the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute--that is the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945--states that the bank is not to provide credit or financial guarantees to expand production of commodities for export to the United States if the resulting production capacity is expected to compete with U.S. production of the same commodity and the extension of such credit will cause substantial injury--I emphasize ``substantial injury''--to U.S. producers of the same commodity. The statute goes on to provide that ``the extension of any credit or guarantee by the Bank will cause substantial injury if the amount of the capacity for production established, or the amount of the increase in such capacity expanded, by such credit or guarantee equals or exceeds 1 percent of United States production,'' with emphasis upon exceeding 1 percent of United States production. I want to go back to last year then. As of last year, when the credit guarantees for Angostura were approved, the total 100 million gallon capacity of the Angostura facility was nearly 4 percent of U.S. production. This amount clearly then exceeds the 1 percent threshold for causing substantial injury to the U.S. ethanol industry as spelled out in the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute. I want to make clear, we are not talking about changing existing policy. We are talking about not letting somebody use subterfuge to get around existing law. It appeared to me that the approval of credit guarantees for Angostura by the Export-Import Bank violated the bank's authorizing statute. Moreover, as the amount financed by the Export- Import Bank was less than $10 million--remember, we are talking about $9.87 million--there was no detailed economic impact analysis conducted by the bank. So it seems to me they were conveniently under the $10 million threshold as a way of muddying the waters, camouflaging this transaction, not drawing attention, not even taking their official look at the requirements of the statute by being about $130,000 under the $10 million threshold, hoping that somehow this would get by without our finding out about it. In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, Congress asked the Export-Import Bank for an explanation of the credit guarantees for Angostura. Specifically, the 2005 Act required the Export-Import Bank to submit a report to the Committees of Appropriations of the Senate and the House containing an analysis of the economic impact on U.S. ethanol producers of the extension of credit and financial guarantees for the development of the ethanol dehydration plant in Trinidad and Tobago. Congress also required that this report determine whether such an extension will cause substantial injury to such producers, as defined in section 2(e)(4) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945. In January of this year, the Export-Import Bank provided its report. In its report, the Export-Import Bank skirted around the issue of whether its credit guarantees for Angostura caused substantial injury to U.S. producers, and thus whether the approval of these guarantees was in compliance with the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute. The Export-Import Bank skirted the issue by claiming that the Angostura plant will not ``produce'' dehydrated ethanol. Rather, the Export- Import Bank stated that this plant will merely ``process'' dehydrated ethanol by removing water from wet ethanol produced in Brazil, thus merely ``adding value'' to the wet ethanol from Brazil. The Export-Import Bank's response to Congress was, to be polite, a curious one. The Export-Import Bank's linguistic gymnastics aside, Angostura's plant will clearly be producing dehydrated ethanol. This is common sense. An ethanol dehydration plant--of course--produces dehydrated ethanol. Moreover, the Customs Service recognizes that ethanol dehydration plants in Caribbean Basin Initiative countries produce dehydrated ethanol. From what I can see, the Export-Import Bank's approval of credit guarantees for Angostura's ethanol plant violated the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute by causing substantial injury to U.S. producers of the same commodity, in violation of the law. Accordingly, it is only right that no further funds should be provided for this facility. My amendment would simply provide that no funds made available under the 2006 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act may be used by the Export-Import Bank to approve or administer a loan or guarantee for Angostura's ethanol dehydration plant. The credit guarantees for Angostura were improperly approved. Angostura, and ultimately Brazilian ethanol producers, should not continue to benefit from credit guarantees that were improperly provided by this bank. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I send the amendment to the desk and ask that it be read.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have considered Dr. Crawford's experience and performance on the job for well over a year now. In fact, Dr. Crawford has been the man in charge at FDA since I began taking a hard look at the FDA. It has been a long year for the FDA and I have taken a long look at Dr. Crawford's efforts to address FDA's problems. I know Dr. Crawford is intimately familiar with how the FDA operates. He has twice served as acting Commissioner, most recently since March 2004, and his lengthy service at the FDA is commendable. Dr. Crawford and I have met on a couple occasions. He is a gentleman and seems to have the best of intentions. He told me personally that he understands there are problems at the FDA that need to be fixed. I believed at one point that he was capable of fixing those problems. However, as the saying goes, ``the proof is in the pudding.'' Today, I am here to say that I cannot vote for Dr. Crawford to be the next Commissioner of the FDA. During the last 18 months, this country's confidence in the FDA has been shaken. It has been shaken not because of one isolated incident or one isolated whistleblower. It has been shaken because multiple drug safety concerns have been exposed by more than one courageous whistleblower. My oversight of the FDA leads me to the conclusion that there are cultural and systemic problems at the FDA. Unfortunately, Dr. Crawford has long been part of that same culture and system. The evidence is overwhelming that the FDA must change to better protect the American people. Dr. Crawford does not appear willing to be the man to change the FDA. During Dr. Crawford's tenure, I have witnessed the suppression of the scientific process and the muzzling of scientific dissent. First, with Dr. Mosholder finding a link between anti-depressants, children and suicide. And second with Dr. Graham's allegations regarding the FDA, Vioxx and post-marketing safety generally. Dr. Graham's testimony before the Finance Committee suggests that the problems are systemic. Oversight of the FDA exposed the cozy relationship that exists between the FDA and the drug industry. It revealed that the FDA negotiated for almost 2 years with Merck about how to change the Vioxx label so people would know about the risk of heart attacks. But the problems are not isolated to the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. My staff continues to interview FDA staff across the agency, employees who are doing important work on drugs, devices, and biologics. It is becoming more and more obvious to me that FDA is plagued by structural, personnel, cultural, and scientific problems. Those problems should be equally obvious to Dr. Crawford. But under the leadership of Dr. Crawford, the FDA appears to be in a state of denial. Over the past 18 months, Dr. Crawford has not stepped up to the plate. I have seen no recognition of the depth and breadth of the problems at the FDA. I have only seen a few short-term band-aids. The systemic problems at the FDA demand visionary leadership. Dr. Crawford has not shown me that he is the leader to fix the FDA.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, While I support the underlying amendment and hope my colleagues will support it, I rise to strongly object to a provision in this amendment which lies within the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee. Section 1808 requires the Bureau of Customs and Border Patrol to conduct a study on the screening of municipal waste. The Bureau is then required to ban the importation of such waste 6 months after the report is submitted unless certain certifications are made. I have been in consultation with the Office of the United States Trade Representative and believe that this provision raises serious international trade concerns. In fact, this provision could violate trade responsibilities under both the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement. If that is the case, our exporters are likely to face retaliation. I don't want that to happen. Furthermore, it could also provoke similar restrictive actions by our trading partners against U.S. waste exports. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, approximately 250 U.S. companies in over 30 States sent hazardous waste shipments to Canada in 2003 alone. I am especially disappointed that this provision was reported out by the Committee on Homeland Security. Last year we engaged in significant debate regarding appropriate jurisdictional responsibilities of each committee. The Senate determined that provisions relating to Customs and border protection and international trade clearly lie within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. Just a cursory reading of the scope of the Finance Committee's jurisdiction under Rule 25 of the Standing Rules of the Senate provides that: The following standing committees shall be appointed at the commencement of each Congress, and shall continue and have the power to act until their successors are appointed, with leave to report by bill or otherwise on matters within their respective jurisdictions: Committee on Finance, to which committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects: Customs, collection districts, and ports of entry and delivery; reciprocal trade agreements; revenue measures generally; and tariffs and import quotas, and matters related thereto. An elaboration of the scope of the Finance Committee's jurisdiction can be found on our web site where it is clearly explained that: The Senate Finance Committee's jurisdiction is defined by subject matter--not by agency or Department. As a consequence of the committee's broad subject matter jurisdiction, the Finance Committee has sole or shared jurisdiction over the activities of numerous agencies and offices: the Office of the United States Trade Representative; the Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service on matters relating to foreign barriers to U.S. agriculture goods; numerous divisions within the Department of Commerce; and Broad Jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security. This provision of this amendment clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. And there is a reason for committee jurisdiction. We need to ensure that those committees with appropriate expertise have an opportunity to weigh the implications of these provisions before they become law. Otherwise, we end up exactly where we are today--exposing our exporters to unnecessary trade retaliation due to ill conceived and short-sighted provisions. I urge the conferees to reject this provision during conference consideration.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to offer my congratulations and gratitude to an extraordinary Iowan. LTG Roger C. Schultz is stepping down from his distinguished position as Director of the Army National Guard for the National Guard Bureau. He assumed this position in 1998 and has served for 7 years, the longest anyone has held this title. I would like to take this opportunity to show Lieutenant General Schultz the appreciation that the country, the State of Iowa, and myself personally, have for his extensive commitment to the Army National Guard. He joined the Iowa Army National Guard in 1963, and from there he began a career that lasted 42 years. Lieutenant General Schultz has had an extensive career. In his most recent position as director, he was responsible for the formulation, development, and implementation of all programs and policies affecting the Army National Guard. Previously, he served as Deputy Director for Military Support on the Department of the Army Staff, where he was responsible for coordinating all Department of Defense military support to civilian authorities, which included disaster relief. While stationed with the Iowa Army National Guard, he was in Command of the 2nd Brigade, 34th Division and served as the Army Guard Chief of Staff and Deputy Adjutant General. General Schultz also received several awards and recognitions for his exemplary service. He is honored with the Distinguished Service Medal, Silver Star, Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, Bronze Star, Purple Heart with Oak Leaf Cluster, Meritorious Service Medal with Two Oak Leaf Clusters, Department of the Army Staff Badge, Army Superior Unit Award, Humanitarian Service Award, the Combat Infantry Badge for service in the Republic of Vietnam, and many others. General Schultz was born in LeMars, IA and enlisted when he was 18 years old. He was a student at officer candidate school at the Iowa Military Academy. Following these studies, he was commissioned in 1967 as an infantry officer. Shortly thereafter, he was sent to serve his country in the Republic of Vietnam with the 25th Infantry Division. During his several assignments, he also earned a bachelor's degree in management from Upper Iowa University and a Masters degree in public administration from Shippensburg State University in Pennsylvania. He also attended Army War College. I share my appreciation for the general with not only his neighbors in the State of Iowa but the entire country. He has proven himself to be versatile and fully capable of accepting and mastering the tasks placed before him. His enduring commitment to the safety of Americans is cause for admiration. Again, I offer my congratulations and sincere appreciation to LTG Roger Schultz for his remarkable achievements in the Army National Guard. He has continually provided an invaluable service to his country and I thank him for his dedication and devotion to Iowa and to America.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, just 2 weeks ago a former staffer and longtime friend, Ally Milder, and a business associate of hers came to spend the weekend at the Grassley farm in New Hartford, IA. I tried to get Ally to step out of her fancy shoes for a couple of days and learn a little about farming. I never did persuade her to feed pigs, but we had a lot of laughs. Today I stand before the Senate with great sadness because Ally Milder--my former chief counsel and a good friend to Barbara and me-- died suddenly last Thursday at the age of 50. Ally is gone suddenly and too young. I extend my deep sympathy to her mother Frances and sisters Julie and Kelly, and pay tribute to Ally Milder with much regard. I met Ally in 1981. She was one of my first counsels on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I was a freshman Senator. She was fresh out of law school and stayed on my staff until 1987, becoming chief counsel during that time. Ally and I shared a great interest in religious freedom. Her leadership helped me to be very active in Soviet Jewry issues as a Senator, including a 1983 trip to the Soviet Union where we met with Russian Jews, the refuseniks, in Moscow. Ally was instrumental in forming the InterParliamentary Group for Human Rights in the Soviet Union, an important weapon in the fight against abuses and for freedom for Soviet Jews. Her tremendous enthusiasm and commitment to this important cause was also proved when she staffed passage of legislation to change the address of the Soviet Embassy in Washington to One Sakharov Plaza. We had to fight the State Department and all kinds of other powerful interests to prevail and provide a daily reminder that America would not overlook the plight of dissidents. Ally personally made a difference in the course of history with her work in this area of human rights. Ally worked on many issues during those years, including the nomination of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court and extension of the Voting Rights Act. Under her leadership of my Judiciary staff, the False Claims Act was passed and signed into law. This landmark legislation updated a Civil War-era law to empower individual citizen-whistleblowers to fight fraud against the taxpayers. In the nearly two decades this law has been on the books, it has returned more than $12 billion to the U.S. Treasury that would otherwise have been lost to fraud. In addition, Ally oversaw renewal of Chapter 12 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code, which was a lifeline for family farmers needing to reorganize debt and stay in farming during the terrible farm crisis of the 1980s. Whatever she was working on, Ally brought energy, a let's-make-it- happen attitude, and characteristic good nature to the task. Her skill and style made her a respected and well-liked colleague on the staff. Ally left Washington to return home and run for Congress herself, making two good attempts for the Second District seat in Nebraska. I campaigned with her several times. She was tireless about reaching the voters, and we spent one of those days going to all the small towns and rural areas in the district. From what I know about Ally Milder, both before and after she ran for the House of Representatives, I am convinced she would have made a very good Congresswoman. Ally went on to serve on the State board of education starting in 1992, and launched a successful consulting and lobbying practice. Ally always kept in close touch, and she loved politics. I appreciate the support she gave me. She was generous and shared her commitment to making things better in a lot of ways, including mentoring economically disadvantaged young people. It is hard to believe that Ally won't be walking around the corner somewhere, sometime next week, with her big smile and warm embrace. Knowing Ally, she might want us to take comfort today in an old Jewish saying that ``the only truly dead are those who have been forgotten.'' There is no doubt that Ally Milder will be remembered. She was full of life, bright, hardworking, and someone focused on the good things in life and making life good for those around her. She will be greatly missed. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last night we started debate on the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Last night, in addition to the economic factors involved in the approving of this bill, I spoke about the national security importance of this Central American Free Trade Agreement. I also talked--as, obviously, we do on most trade legislation--about the benefits of the agreement to the U.S. economy in general. This morning, I will focus on the benefits of this agreement for U.S. agriculture. As a Senator from Iowa and as a person who lives on and has an interest in a family farm my son operates, I have major interest in the U.S. agricultural policies that benefit American farmers. Moreover, as chairman of the Finance Committee, I pay particularly close attention to trade issues as they affect agriculture. I consulted frequently with the U.S. Trade Representative during negotiations on this agreement, the Central American Free Trade Agreement. I do that because that is the responsibility my committee has under trade promotion authority, which is a process by which Congress delegates the process of our carrying out our constitutional responsibility of control over international trade to the President to negotiate because it is quite impractical for 535 Members of Congress to negotiate with foreign countries. U.S. negotiators went to great lengths to see that the Central American Free Trade Agreement would be a good agreement for American farmers. Their efforts were successful. The negotiations resulted in an agreement that is particularly strong for U.S. agriculture and the agribusiness community that affects so many nonfarm jobs throughout the United States. I am fully convinced that implementation of this Central American Free Trade Agreement by the United States is in the best interests of U.S. agricultural producers. That is why I go to great lengths urging my colleagues to support it. U.S. farmers and ranchers are well aware of the fact that the international playing field for agricultural exports is presently far from level. Average tariffs of other countries on imports of U.S. agricultural products in the case of most commodities is significantly higher than those imposed by the United States. That worldwide average would be 60-some percent of tariffs of U.S. agricultural products going into another country, whereas those same countries throughout the world bringing products into the United States face an average of only an 11- percent tariff. It is common sense to negotiate other countries' tariffs against our agricultural products down some or a lot and hopefully down to a point where we are in a win-win situation for American agriculture and the nonfarm jobs involved in the processing and handling of agricultural products. That is our long-term goal. In fact, that is the goal we have right now in the Doha round World Trade Organization negotiations going on this year. That is for the entire 150 countries that are members of the World Trade Organization. We hope that Doha round is a major breakthrough for the reduction of high worldwide tariffs against agricultural products. Now, as this unequal situation I just described has clearly demonstrated, and specifically in this trade relationship we have between the United States and these five countries of Central America, over 99 percent of agricultural products from Central American countries coming to the United States currently come in here not with an 11-percent average tariff I talked about worldwide, they come in with hardly any duty-- except for an occasional product--and are duty free right now. That is unfair to American farmers. When we send products down there, the average bound tariff of these five Central American countries is over 44 percent. The current trading relationship between the United States and the CAFTA countries is not only an unlevel playing field but also a one-way street. CAFTA farm products do not pay tolls to enter the U.S. market today. Yet U.S. agricultural products are charged hefty tolls to enter the markets of these five countries. This is all going to be changed by the Central American Free Trade Agreement. A downhill one-way street will become a level two-lane road. Under the agreement, the CAFTA countries will eliminate tariffs on virtually all products. U.S. tariffs will remain largely unchanged. After all, the vast majority of agricultural products of the CAFTA countries already enters the United States duty free. For example, the treatment under the agreement of the four major U.S. commodities--pork, beef, corn, and soybeans--demonstrates how the Central American Free Trade Agreement will remove disadvantages faced by U.S. agricultural producers. These commodities are of importance not only to my State of Iowa but to most agricultural States in our country. The Central American Free Trade Agreement countries currently apply tariffs of up to 47 percent on imports of U.S. pork. Their bound rates reach as high as 60 percent. Under the agreement, these tariffs of the Central American countries will be reduced to zero. With beef, they apply tariffs of up to 30 percent on imports of U.S. beef. Their bound rates reach as high as 79 percent. Under CAFTA, these tariffs of the Central American countries will be reduced for our U.S. farmers to zero. The CAFTA countries currently apply tariffs of up to 45 percent on imports of U.S. corn. Their bound rates reach as high as 75 percent. Under the agreement, tariffs of CAFTA countries on corn, the predominant product we export, will be reduced to zero, with the exception of the Dominican Republic, in which case duty-free access will be locked in. Soybeans is another example. CAFTA countries currently apply tariffs up to 5 percent on imports of our soybeans and up to 20 percent on U.S. soybean oil. Their bound rates reach as high as 91 percent for soybeans, 60 percent for bean meal, and 232 percent for the soybean oil. Under the agreement, tariffs of the CAFTA countries on U.S. soybeans, bean meal, and soybean oil will be reduced to zero. The leveling of the playing field with regard to CAFTA countries will result in real gains for U.S. agriculture. According to the Farm Bureau Federation, CAFTA would increase U.S. agricultural exports to those countries by $1.5 billion at the end of the full implementation. CAFTA will result in dollars in the pockets of U.S. farmers and ranchers. Recognizing that CAFTA will profit their members, numerous agriculture and food organizations have expressed their support for this agreement. I have a letter from 73 such groups that back the agreement. These organizations represent diverse commodities produced in the area regions including among the 73 the Farm Bureau Federation, Soybean Association, Chicken Council, Corn Growers, Milk Producers, Pork Producers, Potato Council, Turkey Federation, Rice Federation. Moreover, six former U.S. Secretaries of Agriculture, both Republican and Democrat, have announced their support for the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Let me read those: Ann Veneman, Republican; Dan Glickman, a Democrat; Mike Espy, Democrat; Clayton Yeutter, Republican; John Block, Republican; Bob Bergland, Democrat. They all noted in a recent letter to Congress that they back CAFTA ``because the benefits are very significant and the costs are minimal.'' I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Most sectors of U.S. agriculture support the CAFTA. I realize one--sugar--is a commodity we did not have their support. I respect the sugar industry. They are very important. Outside of that group, we have agriculture represented behind this group. An economic study by the American Farm Bureau Federation confirms that CAFTA will not harm the U.S. sugar program or other agricultural commodities. While CAFTA is important in itself for U.S. agriculture, the implementation of this agreement would boost U.S. efforts to liberalize agricultural trade around the world. The implementation of CAFTA would give further momentum toward the completion of agricultural negotiations in the Doha Round of the World Trade Organization, negotiations in which the United States is seeking to cut tariffs, harmonize levels of domestic support, and eliminate export subsidies. Mr. President, CAFTA is a straightforward win for the bulk of U.S. agricultural producers. A current one-way trading relationship will end. The CAFTA countries will dismantle their tariffs to U.S. agricultural products while the United States will provide little additional access for CAFTA commodities. This will result in increased sales for U.S. agricultural exporters, sales of up to $1.5 billion a year by the end of the agreement's full implementation. Not surprisingly, CAFTA is widely supported in the U.S. agricultural community. The CAFTA is good agricultural policy and good trade policy. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator whatever time he needs.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kathryn Becker of the staff of Senator Jeffords be allowed the privilege of the floor during consideration of CAFTA.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senate has just passed S.1307, the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. I am confident that history will record this moment as an important positive step in the development of democracy and prosperity in the CAFTA countries. And I am also confident that our leadership in passing CAFTA will be rewarded, through the benefits we will enjoy under this trade agreement and in terms of advancing our overall trade agenda. First and foremost, today's vote reflects the leadership of President George W. Bush to advance the national economic and security interests of this country. This agreement is another important piece of the President's overall agenda to increase market access opportunities for America's farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and service providers. By passing CAFTA we also strengthen our position in the ongoing Doha Development Agenda negotiations of the World Trade Organization. I hope our Trade Representative, Ambassador Portman, will build upon the momentum created today to press for meaningful progress in the Doha Round negotiations. I want to thank the members of the Administration who delivered the comprehensive CAFTA agreement. At the top of that list is our former Trade Representative, Ambassador Zoellick, who managed to negotiate such a carefully balanced agreement without taking anything off the table. I firmly believe that the guiding principle for all our trade negotiations must be to deliver comprehensive agreements that do not take anything off the table. I expect our trade negotiators to continue delivering comprehensive agreements like CAFTA. Supporting Ambassador Zoellick closely were Ambassador Allen Johnson, our chief agriculture negotiator, and Regina Vargo, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for the Americas. Of course, I am grateful too for the diligence with which Ambassador Portman has focused on CAFTA since taking over as our Trade Representative. Today's successful outcome would not have been possible without the hard work and sustained effort of a number of dedicated professionals. I want to take this opportunity to thank them for their efforts. From the White House Office of Legislative Affairs, I want to thank Mike Smythers, Special Assistant to the President for Senate Affairs. I also want to thank Matt Niemeyer, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Congressional Affairs. The long hours they put in to address Senate concerns and to maintain an open dialogue with Members and staff are very much appreciated. And supporting Mr. Niemeyer in those efforts was Jennifer Mulveny, Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Congressional Affairs. David Oliver, of the Office of General Counsel at USTR, also provided significant legal and technical support both during and after the negotiations were completed. I want to commend my colleague on the Finance Committee, the ranking member, Senator Baucus. Although we did not agree in our views on CAFTA, we maintained our positive working relationship throughout the process. I hope the folks at home will take note. People may think Washington is mired in partisan bickering, but I think we on the Finance Committee have demonstrated our ability to disagree and still maintain respect for each other and for committee process. I am grateful to Senator Baucus, and very proud of our committee. My diligent staff on the Finance Committee has worked very hard to make today's vote possible. First and foremost, my chief counsel and staff director, Kolan Davis, deserves recognition. His skills in managing my lengthy legislative agenda are key to my success. The chief international trade counsel to the committee, Everett Eissenstat, also deserves special mention. Without Everett's tireless dedication to passing CAFTA, I really do not think we would be in this position today. I am also grateful for the strong support the rest of my trade staff provided. David Johanson and Stephen Schaefer, international trade counselors to the committee, were instrumental in providing legal advice and technical support, as were Tiffany McCullen Atwell, international trade policy advisor, 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. And I want to note my gratitude for the many efforts of Zach Paulsen, former International trade policy assistant to the committee. Senator Baucus' staff also deserves recognition for their professionalism and flexibility in helping to move the legislative process forward. I am grateful to Russ Sullivan, Democratic staff director, and Bill Dauster, deputy staff director, for their accommodation and dedication to the committee. I also appreciate the efforts of Brian Pomper, chief international trade counsel to Senator Baucus, and the other members of the Democratic trade staff: Shara Aranoff, Demetrios Marantis, Anya Landau, Janis Lazda, and Chelsea Thomas. Finally, I want to identify two people for special recognition. The first is Polly Craighill, senior counsel in the Senate's Office of Legislative Counsel. Her dedication to the Senate is profound. The Finance Committee benefits greatly from Ms. Craighill's expertise in legislative drafting, her tireless efforts, and her constructive perfectionism. Today's vote is in no small part a testament to her skills. I also want to extend my deep gratitude to Jeanne Grimmett, legislative attorney in the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service. My staff and I repeatedly called upon Ms. Grimmett to prepare legal research and memoranda in connection with our development of this legislation, and her timely support was instrumental to our success today. I am very grateful. I look forward to the enactment of this legislation and hope that President Bush will sign it into law very soon.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I hope I can say the Senate is going to pass S. 1307. I think we will do that. I am going to work the floor to make sure that happens. We have had an awful lot of support expressed for the bill today, and so I look forward to an announcement of a majority vote. I think history will record this important legislation as a positive step in the development of democracy and prosperity in the CAFTA countries that has developed over the last 20 years, greatly expanding that. I am also confident that our leadership in passing CAFTA will be rewarded through benefits our Nation enjoys under this trade agreement, and more importantly, in the broader picture, advancing our overall trade agenda, particularly with the Doha round of negotiations going on throughout the course of 2005. I also want to take a moment to compliment Senator Coleman of Minnesota. Senator Coleman has worked hard to create export opportunities for his farmers and manufacturers while looking after the interests of his sugar farmers, who Senator Coleman clearly cares deeply about. Senator Coleman worked to get his sugar farmers disaster assistance a couple years ago when they were originally ineligible. And now, Senator Coleman has secured a commitment from this administration that the sugar import cap established in the farm bill will not be substantively violated as long as this farm bill is in place. I want to compliment him on his commitment and dedication to his constituents. I appreciate his efforts to find a long-term solution to this complex issue. I am ready to yield back the balance of time and proceed to a vote.