Floor Statements

Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered by Senator Bennett which would strike the grassroots lobbying provision in S. 1.

Several years ago, I, along with several colleagues, undertook the task of strengthening reporting requirements for lobbyists. This culminated in the passage of the Lobbying Disclosure Act which broke new ground by allowing sunlight into the activities of lobbyists in Washington. It finally required meaningful disclosure of the billions of dollars spent on lobbying Members of Congress.

While great progress was made, there was a major loophole left open which needs to be closed. Under current law, lobbyists are permitted to exclude the cost of their efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying when they report under the LDA. We recognized this problem in 1996 but were not successful in efforts to address it. However, I continue to believe that lobbyists who engage in this so-called ``Astroturf'' lobbying should also be required to disclose their spending.

The Wall Street Journal examined this issue when we last reviewed this and reported that an estimated $790 million was spent on this type of grassroots lobbying in a 2-year period alone. Accounting for the growth in the lobbying industry that we have seen over the last decade, this number is surely over a billion by now.

What sort of activities does money spent on ``Astroturf'' lobbying efforts pay for? It is spent on phone banks, telephone patch-throughs to Members, and even professional campaign organizers who are paid to go to key congressional districts to organize letter-writing campaigns. These are coordinated efforts costing tens of thousands of dollars which on their face are part of professional lobbying efforts.

I was pleased to work with Senator Lieberman last year to craft a provision during the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee's consideration of the lobbying bill that would close this loophole by requiring disclosure of ``paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.'' It requires disclosure by paid lobbyists and lobbying firms who stimulate the grassroots to take action. We even went so far as to define pure grassroots lobbying and exclude it from this provision.

The Lieberman-Levin provision that was included in S. 1 simply requires disclosure. This provision does not in any way ``restrain'' or ``regulate'' paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying. All that it does is require paid lobbyists to disclose how much they are spending on their grassroots lobbying efforts. This disclosure would be no more burdensome than the disclosure already required by the Lobbying Disclosure Act for direct lobbying: Amounts spent for efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, like amounts spent on direct lobbying, would be disclosed only in the form of good-faith estimates, which would be rounded to the nearest $20,000.

In addition, the provision, like the Lobbying Disclosure Act, recognizes that certain organizations are already required to track lobbying expenses, and grassroots lobbying expenses, for IRS purposes. The provision allows these organizations to use their IRS numbers for disclosure purposes, ensuring that they do not have to account twice by different rules.

This section was carefully crafted to exclude certain activities that are not part of this Astroturf lobbying industry. Efforts by an organization to communicate with its own members, employees, officers, or shareholders are expressly excluded. Organizations that exist solely to lobby Congress but do not employ paid lobbyists do not have to report. Finally, any grassroots lobbying efforts targeted at less than 500 people do not have to be reported.

I would also like to clarify just who is required to disclose as a lobbyist under this provision, as there seems to be confusion over this point. Paragraph (b) of section 220 clearly states that individuals who are not registered lobbyists now would not have to register as a lobbyist under this provision so long as their expenditures are only directed at grassroots lobbying. This provision is intended to shed light on the dollars being spent by lobbyists. It in no way affects individuals who want to call or write their Member of Congress.

For the past decade, we have allowed lobbyists to exclude the cost of their organized grassroots lobbying campaigns, even while they are reporting their other lobbying expenses. It is time to put an end to this arbitrary exclusion because the public has a right to know who is paying how much to whom in an effort to influence our decisions.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Bennett amendment.

Mr. President, I would like to congratulate the Grand Valley State Lakers on winning the 2006 Division II National Championship. Grand Valley completed a highly entertaining and rewarding season on December 16, 2006, when they defeated Northwest Missouri State 17-14 in the championship game. This victory is a great source of pride for all those affiliated with Grand Valley State University and for the State of Michigan.

It was a record breaking year on many fronts for the Grand Valley State Football team. This victory was the culmination of a perfect 15-0 season for the Lakers. Under the guidance of Coach Chuck Martin, Grand Valley State won their fourth Division II Championship in the last 5 years. During this time, the Lakers have become a powerhouse in Division II football and have a .709 winning percentage. Since 1999, they have an extraordinary 86-9 record, which is the second highest in all of college football. Moreover, quarterback Cullen Finnerty became the most prolific offensive player in college football history this year. In his 4-year career, Finnerty amassed a 51-4 record and led the Lakers to three national championships. As quarterback of the Lakers, Finnerty finished his career with over 10,000 total yards, including over 2,000 yards rushing.

The championship game provided its share of excitement. The thousands of GVSU fans and supporters who made the trip from the campus in Allendale to the stadium in Florence, AL, were not disappointed with the result. It proved to be a hard fought contest between two great teams. Grand Valley State eventually forced three crucial turnovers in the game, which included a NW Missouri St. fumble in the Grand Valley end zone late in the fourth quarter. Junior cornerback Bill Brenchin made significant contributions on all three plays. Brenchin ended the game with two interceptions and recovered the fumble in the end zone as NW Missouri St. attempted to tie or win the game. Overall, the Grand Valley defense was too much for NW Missouri St. to overcome, and, the Laker offense, under Finnerty's direction had more than enough weapons to stifle the opposing defense.

I am proud to recognize the Grand Valley State football team for their remarkable achievements on the field this year. They have proven that hard work, dedication and commitment can produce great results. The members of the team should be proud of their efforts and should savor their recent success. They have been a tremendous source of inspiration for both the Grand Valley State community and the entire State of Michigan.

Each member of the Grand Valley State team, including Anthony Adams, Sam Allen, Matt Bakker, Lyle Banks, Brandon Barnes, Ryan Bass, Matt Beaty, Nate Beebe, P.J. Beuke, Chad Biggar, Scott Blasko, Cameron Bradfield, Bill Brechin, Drew Burton, Tory Buter, Samad Cain, Robert Carlisle, Brandon Carr, Tony Carr, Tony Carreri, Kirk Carruth, Todd Carter, Mark Catlin, Carlos Clark, Aaron Conti, Greg Copeland, Mendalson Covington, Anthony Crump, Joe Davis, Corey Edwards, Jeremy Ehinger, Billy Eisenhardt, Ian Evans, Eric Ewing, Gary Fant, Chris Favors, Cullen Finnerty, Matt Flutur, Dan Foster, Eric Fowler, Preston Garris, Ryan Gaydosh, Alex Gilde, Brennen Blass, John Godush, Maurice Gore, Mike Graham, D.D. Hardy, James Hardy, Brett Harris, Jacob Henige, Brett Hines, Drew Hinkle, Tyler Holtz, Nick Hopkins, Brad Hull, Brad Iciek, Jay Jandasek, Nate John, Blake Johncock, Derrick Jones, Sam Jones, Zach Jones, Lamar Keith, Mike Koster, Buster Larkins, Mike Leiffers, Astin Martin, John Matthews, Nick McDonald, Mike McFadden, Jacob McGuckin, Byron Miles, David Misiewicz, Terry Mitchell, Jaquon Morrison, Mike Mukuna, Frank Mulder, Jordan Munson, Doug Neumeyer, Courtney Partee, Denny Pittman, Justin Pollock, Danny Richard, Chad Richardson, Sean Roland, Matt Russell, Brandon Ryan, Mike Scherpenberg, Felix Sharpe, Dan Skuta, Blake Smolen, Chad Somerville, Derek Stansbery, Bretty Stengele, Sean Stevens, Alex Szarenski, Joey Teague, Bryan Thomas, Tony Thompson, Jacob Topp, Lance Travis, Antoine Trent, Justin Trumble, Justin Ulberg, Justin Victor, Matt Wade, John Wasmund, Collin Williams, Justin Winsor, Joe Wohlscheid, and James Wojiechowski, made meaningful contributions to the success of the football team and proved once again the strength of teamwork and commitment.

I know my colleagues in the Senate join me in congratulating Coach Martin and the 2006 Grand Valley State

Lakers on their Division II National Championship.

Mr. President, the primary objective of the bipartisan resolution my colleagues and I are introducing today is to convince a bipartisan majority of Senators to oppose deeper military involvement in Iraq by the United States and to get the Iraqis to reach a political settlement among themselves as the only way to end the violence in Iraq.

The resolution would send a clear message that Congress does not support the plan to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq because it is based on the false premise that there is a

military solution to the violence and instability in Iraq, when what is needed is a political solution among the Iraqi leaders and factions.

Iraq's own Prime Minister Maliki acknowledged recently that ``The crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the cycle of aggravation and bloodletting of innocents are the politicians.''

The resolution states that it is not in the national security interests of the United States to deepen our military involvement in Iraq by increasing the number of U.S. troops.

The resolution calls for the transition of our military mission in Iraq to a more limited one of training, counterterrorism, and protecting the territorial integrity of Iraq. It also calls for greater engagement of other countries in the region in the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq.

Last week the President said that he had made clear to Iraq's leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. I welcome these words. But the reality behind the President's new rhetoric is that the open-ended commitment continues--more American military men and women would be sent into the chaos of Iraq's sectarian violence without condition or limitation.

President Bush also indicated that the Iraqi government needs ``breathing space'' to make political progress. The opposite is true. The Iraqi leaders don't need breathing space--they must feel real pressure to reach a political settlement. Increasing our military presence in Iraq takes more pressure off. The Iraq Study Group put it this way last month: ``An open-ended commitment of American forces would not provide the Iraqi government the incentive it needs to take the political actions that give Iraq its best chance of quelling sectarian violence.''

President Bush also said that the Iraqis have set benchmarks for themselves. But look at the track record of the Iraqi government in meeting some of its past benchmarks and promises: Iraqi President Talibani said in August 2006 that Iraqi forces would ``take over security in all Iraqi provinces by the end of 2006.'' That pledge has not been kept. Prime Minister Maliki said last June that he would disband the militias and illegal armed groups as part of his national reconciliation plan, and in October he set the timetable for disbanding the militias as the end of 2006. That commitment has not been kept. The Iraqi Constitutional Review Commission was to present its recommendations for changes in the Constitution to the Council of Representatives within four months of the formation of the Government last May. The Commission has yet to formulate any recommendations. Prime Minister Maliki put forward a series of reconciliation milestones to be completed by the end of 2006 or early 2007, including approval of the Provincial Election Law, the Petroleum Law, a new De-Baathification Law, and the Militia Law. Not one of these laws has been enacted. The Iraqi army pledged six battalions in support of American and Coalition efforts during Operation Forward Together last summer. In fact, Iraqis provided only two battalions.

This is not a track record that inspires confidence in Iraqi pledges and commitments.

The President said that ``America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.'' How did the President say we are going to do that? What will the consequences be if the Iraqis continue to fail to meet these benchmarks, particularly since some of them have been established and missed in the past? The President said ``If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people . . . '' That is an empty threat given the fact that the Iraqi Government has already lost the support of the American people, and it hasn't affected their behavior. The President's most recent plan, like previous ones, includes no mechanism to hold the Iraqis to their commitments.

Just two months ago General Abizaid testified before our Committee against increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. He told us: ``I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the corps commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.''

Deepening our involvement in Iraq would be a mistake. Deepening our involvement in Iraq on the assumption that the Iraqis will meet future benchmarks and commitments given their track record would compound the mistake.

For America to supply more troops while the Iraqi leaders simply supply more promises is not a recipe for success in Iraq. Telling the Iraqis that we will increase our troops to give them yet more breathing space will only postpone the day when Iraqis take their future into their own hands and decide whether they want to continue to fight a civil war or make peace among themselves.

This resolution does not limit any future course of action that Congress may decide to take. What it would do is send a powerful message to the President and the Iraqis that Congress does not support an escalation of our military presence in Iraq.

Mr. President, I will vote in favor of the DeMint amendment as amended by the Durbin amendment.

Last week, I voted to table the original DeMint amendment because it would have stricken earmark reform language in the Reid-McConnell bipartisan substitute and replaced it with provisions which contain, among other things, a definition of earmarked tax benefits which is weaker than the Reid-McConnell language.

The DeMint amendment would have defined a tax benefit as an earmark only if it benefits 10 or fewer beneficiaries. This would have left open a loophole for earmarks which were aimed at benefiting very small groups of people, even as few as 11. It would have been relatively easy to circumvent the DeMint language and the intent of the tax earmark language in the bill.

The Durbin second-degree amendment which has been adopted removes the limitation of ``10 or fewer beneficiaries'' from the DeMint amendment and defines a ``limited tax benefit'' as ``any revenue provision that provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to a particular beneficiary or limited group of beneficiaries''. This is stronger language--a limited group can be far more than 10.

The Durbin second-degree amendment also requires that the earmark disclosure information be placed on the internet in searchable format for at least 48 hours before consideration of the bills containing earmarks. The DeMint amendment did not previously have a similar provision.

In summary, the Durbin language has improved this amendment which will now increase the transparency of earmarks contained in conference report language, as well as include disclosure of tax provisions that benefit limited groups of beneficiaries.

Mr. President, I will vote to table the DeMint amendment. This amendment would strike earmark reform language in the Reid- McConnell bipartisan substitute and replace it with provisions which contain, among other things, a definition of earmarked tax benefits which is weaker than the Reid-McConnell language.

The DeMint amendment would define a tax benefit as an earmark only if it benefits 10 or fewer beneficiaries. This leaves open a loophole for earmarks aimed at benefitting very small groups of people, perhaps as few as 11 or 15 or 50 taxpayers. It would be relatively easy to circumvent the DeMint language and the intent of the tax earmark language in the bill.

The bipartisan Reid-McConnell language, on the other hand, defines a tax benefit as an earmark if it ``has the practical effect of providing more favorable tax treatment to a limited group of taxpayers when compared with similarly situated taxpayers.'' This is stronger language--a limited group can be far more than 10.

I am hopeful that this bill will come back from conference committee containing strong and effective earmark reform provisions from both the House and the Senate bills.

Mr. President, while I am troubled by the potential questions raised by the employment of a family member on a campaign committee or leadership PAC, I will support the chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, Senator Feinstein's motion to table the Vitter amendment No. 6 because it deals primarily with campaign finance reforms and because Senator Feinstein has assured me, personally, that the Rules Committee will hold hearings on this specific issue as a part of comprehensively addressing campaign finance reform later this year.

Mr. President, on April 20, 1999, two students walked into Columbine High School and carried out a shooting rampage, killing 12 fellow students and a teacher, as well as wounding 24 others, before committing suicide. A week later, we paused in the Senate to observe a moment of silence in tribute to those who died and to express our sympathy for their loved ones. Since this tragic event, many of us, on many occasions, have urged our colleagues to debate and pass sensible gun legislation.

Between 1999 and 2004, over 117,000 people have been killed by guns, criminals continue to gain easy access to guns and law enforcement officers do not have the tools they need to investigate gun-related crimes. The 109th Congress nonetheless has failed to act and has missed numerous opportunities to enhance the safety of our communities across the Nation. Congress has not reauthorized the 1994 assault weapons ban. Congress has not closed the

gun show loophole. Congress has failed to make the necessary improvements to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System that could significantly decrease the likelihood of convicted criminals gaining access to guns. And, the President has failed to provide the necessary leadership. Instead we have seen a continual rise in the levels of gun related crime. This increase in crime levels has not been restricted to America's largest cities, but has also permeated America's small and mid-sized cities. As Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and former mayor of Fort Wayne, IN, describes it:

For almost six years, many have systematically made it

easier for criminals to have access to firearms by weakening

enforcement of laws that cut illegal gun trafficking,

supporting policies that encourage more firearms on the

streets of American cities, putting AK-47s and other

military-style semiautomatic weapons back onto our streets

and even placing huge restraints on the ability of

governments and individuals to hold the gun pushers

accountable through the civil court system.

The 110th Congress has a fresh opportunity to act on a bipartisan basis to pass legislation that will make our streets safer for all Americans. I urge my colleagues to work to enact sensible gun safety legislation for the benefit of our families, communities and police officers.

Mr. President, I don't know if my friends on the other side of the aisle want any of the 3 minutes remaining. If not, I will proceed.

I wanted to comment, briefly, on the life and passing of Gerald Ford during this period. I was listening to the remarks of my good friend from Virginia, and except for the part about eggs being thrown in Michigan, it struck an absolutely accurate chord, everything he said. It was kind of hard to imagine that anyone would throw eggs in Michigan, but I have to defend my home State. Other than that, I am sure his memory is very accurate and even the location no doubt is accurate.

He talked about Gerry Ford and what he did heroically in World War II and how he survived the typhoon. Gerry Ford, when he became President, inherited a typhoon. Most Americans will remember President Ford for righting the ship of state during that stormy time when he became President. We all remember him for that because it was heroic what he did then for our Nation, a different kind of heroism from what he displayed in World War II but heroism nonetheless. He was deeply respected on both sides of the aisle for his civility, his bipartisanship, his integrity.

We, in Michigan, in addition to remembering him as all others will for what he did to right that ship of state of ours, also remember him for a lifetime of service, including 13 terms in the House of Representatives from Michigan's Fifth Congressional District. And we, also, take particular pride in this son of Michigan and the manner in which he always treasured his west Michigan roots. There were many eulogies that were recently given about Gerald Ford, but in all of them it was noted that he never forgot where he came from. That was a very important part of this absolutely wonderful man, a friend of mine, someone with whom I had a number of dealings.

Before time runs out for our morning business, I wanted to thank the Senator from Virginia. I don't know if this has been mentioned this morning or not. The Senator from Virginia authored an amendment during the last authorization bill which we adopted here which, by the way, is the John Warner Defense Authorization Act for the next fiscal year, named after John Warner in tribute to his chairmanship. But in that bill, Senator Warner offered an amendment that would name the first of a future class of aircraft carriers the USS Gerald Ford. I understand that the Navy recently announced that it is going to follow the suggestion which was incorporated in the Warner amendment, which I was proud to cosponsor, but in presenting that amendment at that time, Senator Warner recounted some of the heroism of our dear friend, the recently departed President Ford, and his heroism both in war and peacetime.

I thank Senator Warner for the initiative he took to honor Gerry Ford's service to our country in a way which I think will have a very special meaning to President Ford because, as a Navy man, having the first of a future class of aircraft carriers named after him would bring a special pride to his heart.

Gerald Ford began his service to our country in the Navy during World War II, where he displayed great valor in combat, and this will be a fitting tribute.

Our thoughts and prayers are with Gerald Ford's beloved wife Betty and his family as we celebrate his life and legacy.

Mr. President, before the Senator from Vermont leaves the floor, let me commend him for his remarks and the passion he brings to this subject which is based on his own personal experience but which reflects the experience, I believe, of the vast majority of Americans. I just want to tell him how much we all look forward to his leadership on this and so many other issues.

I thank my dear friend from Vermont. I join him also in telling the Senate just how pleased we are to see the Presiding Officer sitting where he is. We have worked together on many issues. We have traveled together. His commitment to such critical issues as immigration, environment, energy, and a number of other issues has made a real difference. He is a very quick study and a quick learner, as noted when we traveled together to Iraq and other countries. So he indeed fits the chair which he is sitting, and it is a pleasure to look at him as I address the Senate for a few minutes this afternoon.

Mr. President, I want to join my colleagues in bidding good

wishes and Godspeed to Senator Paul Sarbanes, the senior Senator from Maryland and the longest serving Senator in Maryland history, as he retires this week.

Senator Sarbanes was elected to the Senate 2 years before me, and thank goodness he was here. Paul Sarbanes has been a dear friend, an indispensable source of wisdom, a trusted ally, and an inspiration. Senator Sarbanes and I even briefly shared an office, when the anthrax attacks of 2001 forced him to leave his office in the Hart Building and set up shop temporarily in my conference room. After years of close cooperation, we were literally working side by side.

What I have found over these years is that Paul Sarbanes is one of the smartest, kindest, and most thoughtful public servants in Government. He is quiet and does not seek the limelight, but behind his calm demeanor is a skilled legislator with a keen mind. Senator Sarbanes operates by compromise and by building consensus, but he also has plenty of backbone when it is needed. He knows when to coax, when to charm, and when to say ``enough is enough'' and get things done.

In the wake of the accounting scandals at Enron and other corporations, it was Senator Sarbanes' leadership that led to the most significant reforms of accounting practices in a generation. The landmark Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, which grew out of his longstanding commitment to corporate responsibility and high ethical standards in business, curbed some of the corporate abuses that had shaken investor confidence in American business.

That law has produced its critics, but most of the detractors are unhappy because Sarbanes-Oxley is so effective. Sarbanes-Oxley forces accountants to actually review the books. It forces CEOs to understand, review, and sign off on the company's financial statements. And it forces companies to produce meaningful financial statements with internal controls that back up the numbers. There are some critics who are waiting for Senator Sarbanes to leave the Senate, hoping to weaken what he built, but they will find many Senators, including this one, who will fight to maintain high standards. Sarbanes-Oxley will continue to serve as the foundation for reasonable regulation of our capital markets.

While his name will always be associated with the Sarbanes-Oxley law, Senator Sarbanes remains an unsung hero for another accomplishment: cracking down on money laundering through the PATRIOT Act. I want to sing his praises on this for a moment because it is an issue I am passionate about and because Senator Sarbanes deserves greater recognition for his work.

For several years prior to the 9/11 attacks, I worked on strengthening anti-money laundering laws--holding hearings, producing reports, and writing legislation but my effort had not succeeded. After 9/11, it was clear that U.S. anti-money laundering laws were full of gaps and vulnerabilities that needed to be addressed. But it was also clear that many in the financial industry did not want to have to operate under tougher laws. Nothing would have been accomplished even then if Paul Sarbanes had not stepped up and led.

In the month after 9/11, Senator Sarbanes showed his legislative genius by taking a diverse group of provisions suggested by many different Senators and House Members, taming the competing interests, and writing a package quickly enough to be included in the PATRIOT Act. His own contributions included a key provision to make anti-money laundering programs mandatory rather than optional and to require anti- money laundering programs at a wide spectrum of financial institutions, such as securities firms and insurance companies, not just banks. He also required for the first time that securities firms report suspicious activity.

In addition to these major changes, Paul helped enact a variety of provisions that I had been pushing for years. For example, he included my provision that barred banks and securities firms from opening accounts for shell banks, closing a major gateway for money laundering. He also helped shut down the flow of dirty money from foreign dictators who were looting their own countries and depositing their ill-gotten gains at U.S. banks by including my provision to make proceeds of foreign corrupt practices covered by our money laundering laws.

And he did all of this work in 1 month, running the conference committee out of his hideaway office in the Capitol with 1 computer, 3 phones, and a shifting group of about 50 staffers from the White House, Senate, House, Justice Department, Treasury, and other agencies. He was the only Senator who was present throughout the entire conference, and it was his work at key moments that kept the anti-money laundering provisions in the PATRIOT Act. Senator Sarbanes' leadership is one of the great untold stories of that bill, and I hope that his role will one day be properly recognized.

Paul Sarbanes has given Maryland and America a lifetime of public service, on President Kennedy's Council of Economic Advisors, in the Maryland House of Delegates, in the U.S. House of Representatives, and in the U.S. Senate. I know that Paul is proud that his son John will now carry on that tradition of service, having been elected last month to represent Maryland's 3rd district in the House. We will welcome John Sarbanes to Congress, but we will greatly miss his dad.

My wife Barbara joins me in congratulating Senator Sarbanes on his retirement and in wishing him and his wife Christine all the best. We treasure their friendship and hope they will visit our Senate family often.

Senator Sarbanes, with apologies to your Greek forbears for my pronunciation: chronyapola. May you have many years.

Mr. President, this bill covers a number of important areas. The so-called ``tax extenders'' provisions will continue a number of expired or expiring tax incentives that are important to our economy. These include the critical tax credit for research and development done here in the U.S. The bill also extends the Welfare to Work and the Work Opportunity Tax Credits, which encourage employers to hire certain long-term family assistance recipients and members of targeted groups such as high risk youth, families receiving food stamps, SSI recipients, and qualified veterans. Another important extension is the deduction for the out-of-pocket expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers of up to $250 for books and other supplies. And there is a deduction of up to

$4,000 for qualified tuition and related expenses. There is also a provision to provide equity to the U.S.-flag ships operating in the Great Lakes.

I am also pleased that this Congress is addressing the annual dilemma of appropriate reimbursement for physicians treating Medicare patients. The current Medicare reimbursement system is flawed, and without action, doctors treating Medicare patients would have faced a 5% reduction in reimbursement. I am pleased that this legislation will halt those cuts and I urge the 110th Congress to take a serious look at overall Medicare reimbursement so that we do not make this an annual affair. I am also pleased that this legislation contains a six month extension of the Medicare hospital wage index reclassification, bringing additional temporary financial relief to over 100 Michigan hospitals.

This bill also includes the permanent extension of Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) to Vietnam which Congress has been granting on an annual basis since December 2001. Vietnam is joining the WTO and the United States is obligated to grant Vietnam permanent normal trade relations in order to receive the market opening commitments that were made by Vietnam as a condition of joining the WTO. As a member of the WTO Vietnam will be subject to all of the WTO's international trade rules. Currently, the United States provides PNTR to most countries, but not Vietnam.

I also support the inclusion of the provisions of S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, in this package. I supported this bill when it passed the Senate because I believe we need to move forward to open up more areas for natural gas exploration to address the increasingly tight natural gas supply in the U.S and its resulting high prices.

Over the past six years, the tight natural gas supply and increasing costs of natural gas has had a significant impact on consumers and particularly on the U.S. manufacturing sector, which depends on natural gas as both a fuel source and a feedstock and raw material. With U.S. natural gas prices the highest in the industrialized world, many companies have made decisions to move their manufacturing operations offshore. Millions of manufacturing jobs have outsourced overseas during this period.

Mr. President, I will support this bill because it contains many important provisions. I do hope, however, that in the next Congress we can take up legislation in a timely manner allowing for more study and deliberation on important far-reaching provisions and avoid these last minute omnibus packages. The process by which this omnibus package was pulled together and unveiled at the eleventh hour is seriously flawed. Pushing through an un-amendable, take-it-or-leave it package of otherwise unrelated bills is not the way Congress should legislate. But at least we are finally coming to address a number of important provisions that we should have dealt with long ago.

Mr. President, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, approximately 1 million people in the United States are addicted to heroin; more than 3 million individuals over the age of 12 have used heroin at least once; and an estimated 4.7 million people are dependent on or abusing other opiate drugs, including prescription painkillers according to a 2005 survey of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

The Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000, DATA, which I authored along with Senators Hatch and Biden, makes a dramatic change in the way America fights heroin addiction. DATA permits, for the first time, FDA approved drug treatment medications to be prescribed and dispensed in an office-based setting under strict conditions by specially trained physicians. The medication in question is called buprenorphine--bup. It blocks the craving for heroin. This new law essentially brings the treatment of opiate dependence into the mainstream of medicine. It allows both primary care and addiction specialists to treat patients who want to get rid of their addiction, but are unable to because of distance or their unwillingness to seek medical treatment at centralized methadone clinics, where their appearance amounts to an announcement of their addiction.

This new law has brought tens of thousands of patients into treatment, who would never have sought treatment in methadone programs. Now in its fourth year, DATA has proved highly beneficial. The success of DATA in extending treatment has resulted in waiting lists for treatment with physicians who have signed up to treat addicts. Those physicians are currently limited to 30 patients.

The great success of buprenorphine has been borne out by firsthand accounts by physicians and addiction experts from across the country, as well as the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Dr. Nora Volkow and the director of the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Dr. H. Westley Clark, who participated in an August 3, 2006 Senate Symposium on DATA, which I sponsored along with Senator Orrin Hatch.

The legislation before us, S. 2560, which reauthorizes the Office of National Drug Control Policy, includes an important amendment to DATA that will more than triple the number of patients specially trained physicians may treat in their private offices. The across-the-board 30- patient limitation has resulted in denials of treatment and even deaths of patients who were not able to enter treatment because a physician had reached the 30-patient limit. For many such persons, their hope of treatment is dashed while they wait on a physician's waiting list.

In an effort to remedy this, the Senate Judiciary Committee's modification of DATA in section 1102 of S. 2560 addresses this problem by permitting physicians who have been certified to utilize buprenorphine in their office-based practice for at least one year, to notify the HHS Secretary of their intention to begin treating additional patients, in accordance with section 1102.

The bill with our amendment raises the number of patients who may be treated by an individual physician from 30 patients to 100 patients. This change--increasing the patient limit

from 30 to 100 per physician--is supported by the medical community at large as well as the addiction speciality associations, including: The American Medical Association, the American Osteopathic Association, The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, The American Academy of Addiction Medicine, The American Society of Addiction Medicine, The Association of American Medical Colleges, and several large health providers such as Kaiser Permanente.

In addition to establishing a process through which trained physicians can dispense or prescribe buprenorphine, the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 required the Secretary of HHS to evaluate the impact of office-based buprenorphine treatment. In compliance with this requirement, the Secretary directed the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration--SAMHSA--to conduct a survey to determine (1) the availability of the office-based treatment, (2) the effectiveness of the office-based treatment, and (3) the potential adverse public health consequences.

The preliminary findings of the HHS evaluation were presented and discussed during the August 3 Senate Symposium which I have previously mentioned. The HHS-SAMHSA evaluation showed that buprenorphine treatment is clinically effective and well-accepted by patients; the program has increased the availability of medication-assisted treatment; adverse effects have been minimal; and that the 30-patient limit established in DATA, as well as cost reimbursement issues decrease potential access to treatment under the program. The experiences articulated by the health care professionals who participated in the August 3rd Senate Symposium are reflective of the findings of the HHS-SAMHSA evaluation, which were presented by CSAT Director Dr. Westley Clark and that were echoed by NIDA Director Dr. Nora Volkow, based on her own expertise and observation of buprenorphine office-based treatment.

It is tragic if the personal and community benefits of this new anti- addiction medication, combined with treatment in the private office of certified physicians are limited because of artificial limits on its use. The legislation before us brings us close to full utilization. I am pleased that the Senate has adopted this life-changing, lifesaving legislation as part of the ONDCP reauthorization bill, as well as the free standing bill, S. 4115, which I introduced along with Senators Hatch, Biden and Collins.

In closing, I would like to share with my colleagues in the Senate the names of the distinguished physicians, addiction experts and agency officials who participated in the August 3, 2006, Symposium and Press Conference Senator Hatch and I hosted on the success of the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000, and the subsequent FDA approval of buprenorphine for the treatment of heroin addiction in 2002. Of particular note are Dr. Charles Schuster of Wayne State University, a past Director of NIDA who has conducted clinical trials with buprenorphine and who has been a great resource and guide on this issue from the very beginning and his advice and expertise continues today; and Dr. Herbert Kleeber, Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University and one of the Nation's foremost experts on drug addiction and treatment, who provided invaluable assistance to me and to Senators Hatch and Biden in putting together this new system of office-based treatment utilizing buprenorphine. Dr. Nora Volkow's expertise and tutoring have led us all to a better understanding of the science of addiction. Dr. Volkow is the Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse--NIDA--where buprenorphine was developed under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement between NIDA and a private pharmaceutical company; Dr. H. Westley Clark, Director of the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Dr. Clark has contributed great understanding of buprenorphine's therapeutic effects in the treatment of heroin abuse and dependence, and in understanding that drug addiction is a public health problem.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following brief remarks of two participants who experienced treatment with buprenorphine, Ms. Tess Walker and Mr. Odis Rivers, and the list of the August 3, 2006 DATA Symposium and Press Conference participants, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as Senator Mark Dayton prepares to leave this body, I would like to share with my colleagues a few thoughts about his service. In September, I had the pleasure of speaking on Senator Dayton's behalf at a dinner paying tribute to the retiring Senators, and I ask that my remarks from that event be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to our colleague from Ohio, Senator Mike DeWine. Senator DeWine is a truly decent, thoughtful individual with a deep concern for children and a refreshing willingness to reach across the aisle. He has been a solid partner on several of the issues common to our two States and the region.

In particular, it has been a pleasure to work with Senator DeWine on issues affecting the Great Lakes, which are critical for our States' economies and for our environment. Since 1999, he and I have served as cochairs of the Great Lakes Task Force and have shared a commitment to protecting and restoring these national treasures. We have fought to protect the lakes from invasive species, to improve water quality, to create a long-term restoration plan, and to expand public access to the lakes.

Senator DeWine's service here has also been characterized by his commitment to children and children's health, and he has been willing to work in a bipartisan way to make progress. He has worked with Senators Dodd and Jack Reed to prevent teen suicides and with Senator Clinton to ensure that drugs given to children are safe for them. He has sponsored a bill with Senator Kennedy to allow the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. As the chair of the District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee, he has also worked to reform the child welfare system in DC.

In addition to his bipartisan approach, Senator DeWine has also shown a willingness to take politically difficult positions when he believes they are the right thing to do. Last year, for example, he joined a bipartisan group of 14 senators who worked to forge a compromise on judicial nominations and to save the Senate from the so-called nuclear option. That step helped to diffuse a tense situation and to protect the Senate as an institution.

I have great respect for Mike DeWine's integrity, his commitment to his State, and his willingness to seek progress over partisanship. I wish him and his wife Fran well in their future endeavors.

Bill Frist

Mr. President, I recognize Dr. John R. Gantz for his 43 years of distinguished service to the United States of America. Dr. Gantz has provided faithful service to his Nation as a soldier, educator and as chief of the Troops to Teachers Program. A native of Pennsylvania, Dr. Gantz earned a Bachelor of Science degree from East Stroudsberg University, a Master's Degree in Adult Education from George Washington University, and a Doctor of Education degree from the University of Southern California.

After serving in the infantry with the U.S. Army at Fort Dix, he taught mathematics and science for the Job Corps in New Jersey. He then began his civil service career as an education adviser in Virginia, followed by two similar assignments in Korea. During this time, he has served as an education specialist, Headquarters Department of the Army; Director of Education, U.S. Army Southern European Task Force, Vicenza, Italy; Deputy Director of Education, U.S. Army Forces Command, Atlanta Georgia; and Deputy Director of the Defense Activity for Non- Traditional Education Support, DANTES.

In 1984, Dr. Gantz was selected as the DANTES European adviser. In this position, he provided guidance and training to education professionals supporting military personnel throughout the United States-European military commands. He has served on numerous advisory boards and been selected to participate in many national conferences as an expert in education programming. This year he was inducted into the International Adult and Continuing Education Hall of Fame in Dallas,

Mr. President, it is my pleasure to congratulate an outstanding and historic church from my home State of Michigan. This year, Ebenezer African Methodist Episcopal Church of Detroit, celebrates 135 years of service, learning and faith. This milestone provides the perfect opportunity to reflect on the rich history of this institution and to remember the many individuals who played an integral part in its success.

The name ``Ebenezer'' means ``stone of help,'' and for 135 years, Ebenezer African Methodist Episcopal Church has truly exemplified this meaning. Ebenezer was established by a small

congregation from Detroit's Colored Society under the leadership of Rev. Gee C. Booth on November 2, 1871, to serve as a safe harbor for newly freed slaves in Detroit. Rev C.H. Ward served as the first pastor for 25 years. Three pastors from Ebenezer were elected to the office of Bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church--Bishop George W. Baber served as pastor from 1933 until he was elected in 1944; Bishop Hubert Robison served as pastor from 1955 until he was elected in 1964; and Bishop Robert Thomas, Jr. served as pastor from 1972 until 1988. More recently, Rev. Robert L. Phillips, who served as pastor from 1991 until 1997, became presiding elder of the north district of the Michigan Annual Conference in 1997.

Throughout its history, Ebenezer served as an institution fully engaged in the fight for civil and human rights. Ebenezer has also worked with the community to make Detroit a better city through outreach ministries, community involvement and financial investments. In 1901, the church provided financial assistance to Henry Ford when he approached Ebenezer for support of endeavors to develop his automobile company. During the Depression, the church established an employment bureau and relief agency for families in need, and during WWII the congregation housed soldiers in the dorms of the former church building. Because of this rich history, in 2003, Ebenezer African Methodist Episcopal Church was designated a historical site by the Detroit Historical Commission.

Today, Ebenezer strives to continue this rich history through a variety of ministries, including programs for young adults and the homeless, as well as substance abuse and prison ministries. Ebenezer African Methodist Episcopal Church continues to stand as a ``stone of help'' under the leadership of Rev. Dr. H. Michael Lemmons. As the sixth oldest Black congregation in Detroit with members from four or more generations, Ebenezer is full of memories of great historical moments and faith that there are many more to come.

I know my Senate colleagues will join me in congratulating Ebenezer African Methodist Episcopal Church and wish its members, volunteers and ministerial staff continued success as they celebrate their 135th anniversary.