Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 7, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., to receive testimony on the report of the Iraq Study Group.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 7, 2006, immediately following the next vote on the Senate floor, in the Senate Reception Room, S-212 of the Capitol, to consider favorably reporting the nomination of Eric Solomon to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to hold an off-the-floor markup during the session on Thursday, December 7, 2006, to consider pending committee business.

Agenda

Nomination: 1. Paul A. Schneider, Under Secretary for Management, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Vertically Integrated Sports Programming: Are Cable Companies Excluding Competition?'' for Thursday, December 7, 2006 at 11 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness list:

Panel I: Mr. David L. Cohen, Executive Vice President, Comcast Corporation, Philadelphia, PA; Mr. John D. Goodman, President, Coalition for Competitive Access to Content, Washington, DC; Dr. Mark Cooper, Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America, Washington, DC; Mr. Michael Salinger, Director of Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC; and Mr. James Baller, The Baller Herbst Law Group, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intellience be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 7, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.

Mr. President, today I ask that the Senate join me in paying tribute to SGT Kampha Sourivong, who made the ultimate sacrifice while protecting freedom. Sergeant Sourivong, of Iowa City, IA, was assigned to C Company, 1st Battalion, 133rd Infantry Regiment, 34th Infantry Division, Army National Guard, based out of Iowa Falls, IA. He was mobilized for Operation Iraqi Freedom with the unit in September 2005 and arrived in Iraq in early May 2006. He died at the age of 20, on September 30, 2006, in Al Asad, Iraq, when his military vehicle encountered small arms fire.

Sergeant Sourivong will be posthumously awarded the following awards and decorations for his heroic service: the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the Armed Forces Reserve Medal with Mobilization device, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the Iraq Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, and the Combat Infantryman Badge.

My thoughts and prayers have been with Sergeant Sourivong's parents, Patty and Maliphone Sourivong, his brother and sister, and all those other family and friends who are grieving the loss of this young man. The Sourivong family described Kampha as ``a very caring person'' who ``had a lot of friends, loved his family, loved his brother and loved his sister'' and someone who ``would give the shirt off his back to someone in need.''

I am grateful for the sacrifice that both Sergeant Sourivong and his family have made. Our Nation will forever be in their debt. While the tragic loss of this young American is deeply saddening, he will be remembered proudly as the hero that he was.

Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to SFC Scott E. Nisely, who made the ultimate sacrifice while serving his country. Sergeant Nisely, of Marshalltown, IA, was assigned to C Company, 1st Battalion, 133rd Infantry Regiment, 34th Infantry Division, Army National Guard, based out of Iowa Falls, IA. He was mobilized for Operation Iraqi Freedom with the unit in September 2005 and arrived in Iraq in early May 2006. He died at the age of 48, on September 30, 2006, in Al Asad, Iraq, when his military vehicle encountered small arms fire.

Staff Sergeant Nisely will be posthumously awarded the Bronze Star for the second time, the Purple Heart, the Iraq Campaign Medal, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the Armed Forces Reserve Medal with Mobilization device for the second time, and the Combat Infantryman Badge.

My thoughts and prayers have been with Scott's wife Geri and his children, Justin and Sarah, as well as all those other family and friends who are grieving his loss. Scott's family said, ``Scott was a dedicated and loving husband and father. He was actively involved in his children's lives. He was a loyal, compassionate, and caring friend that everyone liked. He loved and was committed to God, and was very involved with his church and community.''

Learning about the sacrifice of Scott Nisely, I am reminded of the words of

John 15:13: ``Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.''

His family also said of Scott that he ``loved his country and was a volunteer career service-member that was proud and honored to serve his country.'' Our Nation will be forever grateful for Scott Nisely's loyal service and sacrifice. His loss is tragic, but he will be remembered as an American hero.

He wasn't going to come in between us anyway. He wants the 8\1/2\ minutes but not right now.

Reserving the right to object, the only objection is about what Senator Baucus set up; that we were going to come in line afterwards. I don't object to him having the time.

Mr. President, would you signal to me when I have used 15 minutes of my 20 minutes?

Mr. President, we've hit the end of the road on trying to pass the trailer bill separately. It is pretty clear we won't get a bill to the President's desk before we recess for the upcoming mid-term elections.

From my perspective the right thing to do is to pass legislation that resolves two important tax policy issues. The issues are a permanent death tax relief package and the trailer bill which contains a retroactive extension of several tax relief provisions. Those provisions expired on December 31, 2005. That is the right date-- December 31, 2005. Taxpayers have lived with uncertainty on these bipartisan, widely-supported provisions for almost 9 months or three- quarters of a year.

How did we get here? How come we can't get a permanent death tax relief deal when it is clear that more than 60 Senators are on record in support of repeal or significant relief? How come we can't get a resolution of expired tax provisions that are overwhelmingly supported in both the House and Senate? This uncertainty is solely the responsibility of the leadership of both

parties here in the United States Senate.

We are stuck on death tax because the Democratic leadership won't let enough Democratic Senators vote their conscience. It's all because of political calculations. That's a shame. Family farmers and small business owners deserve an answer to the uncertainty posed by the death tax. My answer would be to repeal the death tax. Repeal isn't in the cards. We have had votes to prove it. Unfortunately, the political proof that repeal wasn't in the cards didn't materialize until the cloture vote we had back in June.

The American people deserve a final and definitive answer on death tax relief. As we go home, they have only to look to the Senate Democratic leadership and ask why the Senate was not permitted to work its will on this issue.

I want to tell the rightfully disappointed family farmers and small business folks that we will resolve the death tax problem. It should have been resolved by now. And, it will be resolved in a way that focuses on family farms and small businesses. I pledge to family farmers and small business folks, especially those in my home state of Iowa, that I will devote my energy and resources, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, to resolving this problem.

Let's turn to the trailer bill. It's an odd name for a bill. The bill has been held up for so long some folks have probably forgotten the basis of the nickname. I will remind you. It's a trailer bill because it covers tax provisions that dropped out of the tax relief reconciliation conference agreement. That conference agreement included the cornerstones of both the House and Senate bills. The cornerstone of the House bill was a 2-year extension of the lower rates on capital gains and dividends. The cornerstone of the Senate bill was an extension of the hold-harmless on the alternative minimum tax--``AMT''. I was pleased we covered the cornerstones of both bills. We only had revenue room to cover the cornerstones. The other provisions, principally the tax extenders, were decided to travel in a bill to follow or ``trail.'' Hence the name trailer bill.

The trailer bill took several weeks of intense negotiations. The negotiators were Chairman Thomas for the House and Senator Baucus and me for the Senate. They were tough negotiations, but they produced a fair agreement. That agreement was included in the trailer piece of the trifecta. The House ratified Chairman Thomas's agreement when it passed the trifecta.

In my view, the agreement is closed. No items should be subtracted. No items should be added. A deal is a deal. Let me repeat that. A deal is a deal. Changes should only occur if all the parties to the agreement consent. We don't have another 5 to 6 weeks to re-negotiate the trailer bill.

In getting to that agreement, I pushed hard for several Senate issues to be resolved. I'm referring to items other than the basic 2-year extension of provisions that expired on December 31, 2005. Let me go through a few of those items.

First off, there is the abandoned mines reclamation--AML--fund proposal. Senators Santorum, Byrd, and Rockefeller took the lead in this plan. Chairman Enzi did the heavy lifting.

Secondly, there is a package of added incentives to enhance Hurricane Katrina rebuilding efforts. Senator Lott took the lead on this package, along with the support of Senators Vitter, and Landrieu.

Third, there are tax relief incentives for mine safety. Senators Byrd, Santorum, and Rockefeller argued for these important provisions.

Fourth, there is an expansion of the veterans mortgage bonds program. This is a program that the states use to provide veterans who return from combat with low-interest loans so that they can buy their families a home. Senators DeWine and Smith advanced these provisions.

Fifth, there is a proposal to provide a deduction for private mortgage insurance--PMI--for low-income home purchasers. Senators Lincoln and Smith worked hard to secure these provisions.

Sixth, there is a proposal to level the playing field between individual and corporate timber capital gains transactions. This proposal will insure that timber-growing areas and related mill towns will not be disadvantaged if the timber company is a corporation. Most, not all, of the Senators from the timber growing states in the Pacific Northwest and southeast had an interest in this provision.

These are a few of the proposals that were negotiated and resolved in the trailer package. In my role as Finance Committee chairman, I protected these Senate positions. I expect our Senate Leadership to back me as we proceed. I am protecting Senators and Senate positions, so you would think they would automatically back me. To reiterate, a deal is a deal. The House has affirmed the deal with its vote on the trifecta. There should be no backsliding on the deal.

Now, we haven't been able to move a separate trailer bill because the Republican Leadership wants to use the trailer as a ``sweetener'' for votes for death tax relief at some future point. I have been pushing for a separate bill for a lot of reasons. Some Republican colleagues have complained about my efforts, using terms like ``whining'' to describe my persistence.

Why push so hard for a separate bill, some have asked. There are three key reasons. The first is the 19 million taxpayers who may face compliance problems because of incomplete IRS forms. The second reason is the hundreds of thousands of business taxpayers who have been in limbo waiting for final approval of measures like the research and development tax credit. Third, I'm virtually certain that the leadership's strategy of trying to use unrelated ``sweeteners'' to turn Democratic votes for a death tax deal will continue to fail.

Let's go through these reasons, one-by-one.

First, take a look at the Finance Committee website. On September 13, and 26, 2006, you will find press releases that explain Finance Committee tax staff research. At my request, the tax staff looked into the effects of delaying action on the three widely-applicable expired middle-income tax relief provisions. I am talking about the deductions for college tuition, teacher's out-of-pocket classroom expenses, and State sales tax. You will see that we are talking about a group of up to 19 million tax filers being affected. Tax filers means families filing jointly and individuals filing as singles. In other words, we are talking about a lot more than 19 million taxpayers. Let me repeat that. More than 19 million taxpayers. The professional staff, all experienced tax practitioners who discussed this problem with the IRS, came to the conclusion that delaying action on extenders into the lame duck would have adverse consequences for that group of 19 million taxpayers. I won't go into details, you will find them on the website.

Let me say that serving as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee is a privilege and a responsibility. I thank the people of Iowa and my friends and colleagues in the Senate Republican Caucus for that privilege. I enjoy every day I serve as chairman, but it brings responsibilities as well. One of those responsibilities is tax policy. Now, whether an individual Senator agrees or disagrees with a particular expiring tax relief matter is debatable. We all have opinions on these things. Probably no two Finance Committee members, let alone two U.S. Senators not on the committee, agree on all expiring tax relief measures. What we ought to agree on, is that we should not deliberately, and I underline the word deliberately, take actions to unnecessarily complicate taxpayers' efforts to comply with our admittedly complex tax system. That's what delaying action on these provisions means. There's no ifs, ands, or buts. If we do not act before the 2006 IRS forms are finalized we're causing problems for these 19 million taxpayers. It's just not right.

As chairman, I would not be doing my job if I stayed silent. I had to speak out. It's my responsibility to those millions of taxpayers. Some have called it whining. Some might call it annoying. Others could call it persistence. I call it doing my job. When you are talking about up to 19 million middle-income taxpayers who are trying their best to comply with the tax system, I will whine until I run out of breath. I tried to remedy this problem by persuading my leadership to change

its mind. I did it in a way that is respectful of the rights and responsibilities of the leadership. I'm disappointed and frustrated that leadership has failed to act.

The second reason I pressed for a separate trailer bill is to deal with long-expired business-related tax incentives. These matters, like the research and development tax credit, are overwhelmingly popular in the House and Senate. Businesses have been in limbo on these provisions. We are talking about almost 9 months of limbo now and at least another month of limbo. A lot of businesses, in good faith, relied on my assurances. They relied on assurances of the Congressional leadership, made in May of this year. These business folks were assured that these extenders would be done. In my State, Rockwell-Collins, of Cedar Rapids, is taking a financial hit because of our dilly-dallying. And it is not just management that cares. Iowa is a manufacturing State and we are proud of our ``R & D.'' Thousands of Iowa employees of these companies have the right to ask why this popular provision is being delayed. Some of them could ask why something this popular is a ``hostage'' to be cavalierly shot? They could ask me if political ``credibility'' of threats is more important than a job-based incentive?

When they ask me these questions, I could blame the Democratic leadership for thwarting Republican efforts to get death tax relief. Certainly, there's truth to that defense. But, the Iowa workers, as most Midwesterners, want to know the bottom-line. Blaming the other side is fair political discourse and everyone does it. But it is not a satisfactory answer if the matter is not taken care of. We owe these companies and workers a ticket out of limbo.

I come to the third reason I pushed for a separate trailer bill. Almost 2 months ago, the proponents of the trifecta rejected my advice and decided to place the bet. I advised them publicly and privately that it would not work. I won't repeat all of that. It is in the Congressional Record of August 3. The bottom line is that the horses didn't come in on the trifecta. After the vote, being worried about the endless delay on extenders, I suggested a course of action that would ``keep the hope of death tax relief alive.'' Under the plan, the leadership would push for an early vote on the trifecta in either the form in which it failed or in a revised form. If it were to fail, I suggested we pass a separate trailer bill.

This plan would have tested, for a fourth time, whether sweeteners for key Democrats would turn their votes to favor a death tax relief package. I was convinced months ago that sweeteners wouldn't turn Democrat votes.

On this point about turning votes with sweeteners, let's step back for a second and look at the big picture. Death tax is a passionate issue. There is a moral dimension to it. Liberals tend to define any death tax relief as immoral because they argue the benefit of the relief will go to wealthy people. The political ads they produce use the actress Paris Hilton as an example.

Conservatives also look at the death tax as a moral issue. They see the death tax as confiscation of the fruits of labor and saving. It's a penalty on the rewards of hard work. From our perspective, the death tax is about small business and family farms. It's about providing one generation with a chance to pass on the results of their thrift and work to the next generation. The political ads we produce use family farm and small business examples.

So, this is an issue where folks have strong feelings. Ironically, from a process standpoint, Republicans and Democrats think alike. Here is what I mean by that comment. Republicans and Democrats want permanent relief. Most, not all, of my caucus wants permanent repeal. A few Democrats agree with that view. Because of the political calculations I referred to before, you can not find a definitive Democratic Caucus position plan on death tax relief. The Democratic Caucus is divided into three groups. Some want repeal. Some want significant relief short of repeal. Another group, probably a big majority, the liberal core, wants symbolic permanent relief and don't want to lose much revenue in doing it.

There is a huge irony in all of this. The irony is the Republican leadership's sweeteners strategy ignores this basic mindset on the death tax. Republicans will not compromise their principles on the death tax with unrelated sweeteners. Neither will the middle group of Democrats.

The ultimate evidence is record votes. As former Majority Leader Bob Dole once said, it's all about the votes. The evidence that sweeteners don't matter is on the record. Take a look at it. Timber capital gains was added as a sweetener on the first Thomas effort. It did not change any votes. There was an effort to add the pension bill to a death tax relief package. That didn't change votes and was aborted. Then, we had the third sweetener effort, the trifecta. A minimum wage hike, the ultimate sweetener, was added along with the trailer bill. It changed one vote in gross. We are not certain, that if all Democratic Senators were here that day, that, on net, the vote count would have changed.

As the old saying goes about some places, there is no there, there. The sweeteners strategy is like the places the old saying refers to. If our goal is 60 votes and permanent death tax relief, there is no there there.

Rest assured, another trifecta run will carry extra political baggage. Don't listen to me. Listen to the Democrats who have resisted the iron hand of their leadership on this issue. Senator Lincoln has taken more heat than any single Senator in trying to get permanent death tax relief. Ask her for her opinion on this ``sweetener'' strategy. She says forcing the political votes on the trifecta set us back on getting permanent death tax relief.

Why, with the pressure of elections off, and a new session coming up, would any targeted Democrat Senator switch their vote on a bill that was designed to squeeze them? Would any of my Republican friends in the same position react any differently? Think about it.

Add to this futility another factor. Taking another run at a revised trailer bill would start an endless negotiation. If we re-open the trailer bill with the idea of adding even more sweeteners, where do we stop? How would that endless negotiation help close a deal on permanent death tax relief? The truth is trying to play trailer bill issues for more votes on death tax relief only complicates resolution of the death tax.

So, the third reason I continued to try to clear the trailer bill is that I want a clear path to a death tax deal. Combining death tax relief with other issues only complicates our ability to get a death tax relief package. There is little or no utility in continuing the failed strategy of trying to ``turn'' death tax deal votes.

Now, where do go from here? As I said a few minutes ago, I want to resolve two important tax relief issues--permanent death tax relief and the trailer bill. One package is done--it's the trailer bill. The other package needs some work, but can get done. We might even have a shot at permanent death tax relief in lame duck. If we are going to move the ball forward, we are going to have to recognize that we have two separate tax relief products. I hope all of us have finally learned that lesson. If we have learned our lessons, the trailer bill is a slam dunk. If we have learned our lessons, and, key Democrats are finally freed to do what they want to do, they will vote their conscience and their constituents' interests. If those two critical steps occur, we will get a permanent death tax relief deal.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to express frustration and disappointment with a provision included in the fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security appropriations bill. The provision would extend the deadline for the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative from 2008 to 2009.

On August 2 Senate Finance Committee held a hearing to highlight the problems at our Nation's borders. We heard testimony from the Government Accountability Office, GAO, about their undercover border crossings over the last 3 years. The GAO agents used fake documents, phony driver's licenses, and claims of U.S. citizenship in order to enter the United States. According to the GAO, their undercover agents got past the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol 42 of 45 times. CBP failed to catch the intruders 93 percent of the time, proving that anyone with a fake identification and a tall tale can get waived right in the United States.

The committee also heard some very strong evidence as to why the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, WHTI/Initiative, is important and why we should make sure this law is implemented by the deadline established by Congress. In 2004, Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act to require the Departments of State and Homeland Security to implement a plan requiring a passport or other document for all travelers entering the United States. We passed this initiative in order to reduce the free travel across our borders by potential terrorists, as recommended unanimously after an extensive investigation by the bipartisan, independent 9/11 Commission.

At the hearing in August, CBP agreed that the initiative is important and told us that they were working to be prepared for the January 1, 2008 deadline. They said the initiative and its passport requirement is the ``gold standard.'' In fact, they even stated that another similar hearing could be held again in a few years if our country did not have a mandatory, standardized document with security features such as biometric identifiers. It was made very clear--border security, in part, depends on secure documents.

Congress, through authorization bills, sets deadlines for a reason. Without them, nothing would get done in Washington. Even with deadlines, agency bureaucrats procrastinate. The US VISIT Program of 1996 is a classic example. The deadline we set for the WHTI is not until January 1, 2008. Extending the deadline in this year's spending bill is premature and foolish. We should have allowed the agency to try to meet the deadline and implement a system that will close our borders to potential terrorists as quickly as possible.

If the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative is delayed, then it is even more critical that our Customs inspectors be equipped with the tools and technology demonstrated at the Finance Committee's August 2 hearing. Only then can they have a better chance at catching people crossing into the United States with fake versions of the currently accepted documents, which are so easy to obtain.

Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity at the end of a Congress to express may gratitude and best wishes to Ken Cunningham, a long-time friend and staffer who has been like family to my wife Barbara and me for more than 25 years and left my staff a few months ago.

He served me in a number of positions during those years, including chief of staff general counsel, legislative director, and legislative assistant--sometimes juggling multiple positions at once. I used to joke with him about all the titles that he had accumulated.

But now faced with growing family obligations, he has left my staff to set up his own government relations firm.

After 2 years working for former Congressman Tom Tauke, Ken joined my new Senate staff in 1981 to handle several legislative and regulatory areas initially focusing on commerce, telecommunications, transportation, and agriculture. In fact, my very first Senate legislative victories came with Ken's help on the 1981 farm bill.

Ken and his wife Sherry lived near Barbara and me, so he and I would drive to and from work together. We got to know each other well during those commutes and quickly became good friends. It was clear that my new staffer possessed sound judgment, integrity, a strong work ethic, and a passion for serving our constituents.

He worked many years in the Senate before it became popular around here to talk about the need for a ``family friendly'' schedule. And yet Ken found the time and energy to earn his law degree at the Georgetown Law Center. But I knew that I could always count on him to make the necessary sacrifices to get the job done here in the Senate no matter how long the hours. He probably set an office record in the early eighties during the crunch time of an ending Congress. As he juggled several pending legislative issues, he took only 7 hours of sleep for the entire week.

As some know, the devastation of the farm crisis of the middle eighties so discouraged me that I almost did not run for reelection. But Ken, like me, grew up farming. He, too, had friends back home and was likewise crushed by their suffering. He worked tirelessly to help me fight for every bit of relief and assistance possible to help rural Americans through that tragic time.

As partial testament to his effectiveness, when I did decide to run again, and we did some polling, my highest approval ratings came from farmers and their families. And while the farm crisis led to the defeat of many Midwest legislators, I was reelected by a wide margin.

My good friend, former Senate majority leader, Bob Dole, has called Ken Cunningham the smartest staff man on Capitol Hill, and said that I am lucky to have him. Given the number of staffers Senator Dole has known over the decades, that is indeed a remarkable compliment. But Ken has proven time and again that he deserves that reputation.

Ken has always been quick to grasp the complex. He possesses incredible discernment and political instincts. He has an intense competitive spirit.

And he is tenacious--almost as tenacious as me. He probably learned that from me.

Given these positive traits, combined with his understanding of Senate legislative rules and procedure, Ken can be either a great ally, or a most formidable opponent.

Let me give you an example.

Ken's expertise and qualities proved crucial in reversing a devastating tax legislation defeat handed to us by the House of Representatives, led by then-Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer, during consideration of the 1997 reconciliation bill.

Chairman Archer and big oil had long despised tax incentives for ethanol, one of America's few energy independence success stories, and the source of billions of dollars of income and thousands of jobs for rural Americans and farmers.

By using reconciliation to kill these tax incentives and thus creating tax savings that protected other popular programs, Chairman Archer had devised and executed a plan to kill these tax incentives that were procedurally and politically virtually impossible to stop. He rammed it through his committee and then rammed it through the full House of Representatives.

Pro-ethanol allies in both the House and the Senate faced what seemed like one of those ``deer-in-the-headlights'' moments.

As the Senate Finance Committee prepared to take up the reconciliation package, farm and renewable fuels groups looked to me to lead the fight. But cracking reconciliation's procedural nut at this point was a daunting challenge at best.

Ken, however, formulated a legislative response that overcame these obstacles. One Finance Committee tax counsel wryly characterized it as ``clever.''

The amendment was designed not only to stop Chairman Archer's handiwork, but also to extend the ethanol tax provisions by several years. This was a bold move for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the fact that it drew opposition from both the Finance Committee's chairman and ranking Democrat.

The political obstacles were even more challenging than the legislative and procedural.

Many Democrats were outright giddy with the prospects of taking back control of Congress by blaming Republicans for the loss of the ethanol program and the resulting harm to rural America.

In recognition of this temptation, Ken recommended a particular Democratic cosponsor who, though not recognized as the most experienced in these battles, we felt would fight hard against political gamesmanship. He also devised a plan that did not depend upon the Clinton administration's help to ensure success.

I will never forget how quickly the loud chortling of the big oil lobbyists fell silent as they were stunned the night my amendment passed the Senate Finance Committee by a vote of 16 to 4.

And to the amazement of many, we fought to a draw during the 1997 reconciliation battle. Both Chairman Archer's and my provisions were dropped in conference. We then braced for Chairman Archer's next attack that came with the 1998 highway bill. This time, however, Speaker Gingrich quietly assured me that if we could get my tax amendment passed once again in the Senate, he would find a way to help me in conference.

As the time came close for the House/Senate conference, the Speaker had not yet said what he would do to help. Ken explored a number of ideas. It was common practice for House committee chairmen to designate members of their party and committee to attend conferences. But researching House rules, and seeking confirmation from the House Parliamentarian, Ken determined that the actual power of appointment resides with the Speaker.

We approached the Speaker to suggest that he consider exercising this power. And indeed, that is ultimately what the Speaker did: he appointed pro-ethanol House conferees, and my legislation extending the ethanol tax incentive prevailed, while the Ways and Means chairman's language to kill the program was dropped.

When I became the new chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Mark Prater, the committee's chief tax counsel, told me that this was by far the biggest victory he had witnessed of me. It was unheard of and astounding for a mid-level member of the Finance Committee to defeat, as I did, a Ways and Means chairman on one of his top priorities.

Mr. President, even House Speaker Gingrich was amazed as the dust settled and we emerged victorious. Addressing a group of my constituents, the Speaker characterized legislate battle as, and I quote, ``the substance about which great novels are written.''

I will be first to acknowledge and express gratitude for all the help that many, many people provided in this fight, but I am convinced that we would have lost and there would be no ethanol program today had Ken Cunningham not come up with the right analyses and solutions at each and every critical juncture.

Over the years, Ken helped me at one time or another in just about every area of legislation and committee assignment, but he also contributed greatly to my office as a manager--first as legislative director and then as chief of staff.

He is very good with people--tactful and empathetic. He is firm, but always fair and even-handed. He has a way of bringing calm and resolution to tensions and conflict among staff. He is a good problem solver, teacher, and coach.

It is said that actions speak louder than words. And although I am not at a loss for words of praise for Ken, I think one of my last acts before he left speaks volumes about my confidence in Ken's judgment, loyalty, friendship.

I asked him to find and hire his own replacement--someone who was just as good with the same experience. I knew he would not let me down, and I think he did a pretty good job on that last assignment.

Ken has a wonderful wife and four growing boys. Barbara and I extend our blessings and best wishes for Ken and his family. And we have absolute confidence that he will be successful in his new business.

We miss seeing him at the office every day but know we will always be close friends.

So, Ken, to a valued public servant and a trusted friend, Barbara and I say

thank you for your long-standing service to Iowa and the U.S. Senate.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the impact of Public Law 109-8, the bankruptcy reform legislation of which I was the lead sponsor here in the U.S. Senate. On October 17, 2006, we will see the one-year anniversary of the new law. This law was the result of many years of comprehensive study and intense debate in Congress. There was much give and take among all interested parties over several Congresses, and the final bill that was signed into law was the result of compromise, upon compromise, upon compromise. In fact, people tend to forget that this law passed both the House and Senate by wide bipartisan margins. It is a law that was sorely needed. It is a law whose central premise--if an individual wants to file for bankruptcy and can repay some of his debt, he should do just that, repay some of that debt--is supported by almost everyone. The law's central premise is about fairness. It is about good old common sense.

The bankruptcy reform legislation was driven by a desire to restore balance to a system that had become too easy: a system where clever lawyers gamed the integrity of the bankruptcy system for the benefit of those who wanted to get out of their debts scott-free and to the detriment of those who played by the rules. In fact, bankruptcy rates in the 1990s and early 2000 timeframe exceeded bankruptcy rates during the Great Depression, despite the fact that the economy was going strong during much of this time. So with this law we closed some loopholes, made upper-income Americans repay more of their debts if they were going to seek bankruptcy, and enacted important consumer protection provisions so people could be more knowledgeable about their finances. The law retained bankruptcy for those who truly are in need of that relief, while injecting more integrity and fairness in the bankruptcy system.

So how has the new bankruptcy law worked? So far, I think it is too soon to make firm judgments. But early reports indicate the new law has been working very well. We have seen bankruptcy rates fall dramatically from about 2 million bankruptcies in 2005 to the point where I doubt there will be over 1 million bankruptcies in 2006, if current trends continue. In my mind, this is bound to help the American economy. Fewer bankruptcy filings lead me to believe that only those individuals who truly are in need of a fresh start are filing for relief. Furthermore, a natural outgrowth of fewer bankruptcy filings is a much lower cost to the American consumer and the U.S. economy.

As my colleagues may recall, the Clinton administration's Treasury Secretary, Larry Summers, told Congress that high levels of bankruptcies tend to push up interest rates. I have called that the ``bankruptcy drag'' on the economy. It is just common sense. When a business loses money because a customer files for bankruptcy instead of paying his bill, that business has a couple of options: Either the business can absorb the loss and spend less on growth and expansion or the business can increase what it charges other customers to offset the loss, imposing what many of us in Congress called a bankruptcy tax. It follows that businesses can weather the storm when the occasions where customers don't pay their bills are relatively rare, but when you have a scenario where filing bankruptcy is easy and customers are filing bankruptcy on a regular basis--whether they really need it or not, no questions asked--and they aren't paying their bills, well, then businesses get into trouble. Unfortunately, businesses that don't get paid aren't the only ones impacted by this.

The reality is, either way, u1timately it is the consumers and the economy that suffer the most when bankruptcies spiral out of control. People who play by the rules and pay their way are the ones who end up picking up the tab. I would rather see the ``bankruptcy drag'' reduced, freeing up businesses to grow, add jobs, and contribute to the Nation's economy and the people's prosperity. I would rather see the $400 ``bankruptcy tax'' burdening American families each year reduced so they can spend their money in a more productive way. And based merely on the bankruptcy filing numbers available from the Federal courts, I think that it is fair to say that Public Law 109-8 has been a success for our economy. Public Law 109-8 has driven a stake through the heart of this bankruptcy drag.

I have struggled with how to put a dollar figure on how much bankruptcy reform has saved the economy since it became the law of the land. During Congressional debate, we received testimony that the average amount discharged in bankruptcy is $41,000 per filing. If one does some simple math, taking the total number of consumer bankruptcies filed in the first half of this year and doubling that number, it seems we could see about 550,000 consumer bankruptcies in 2006--perhaps a little more, perhaps a little less.

As I said, the Federal courts reported that we had just over 2 million consumer bankruptcies filed in 2005. So using the $41,000 figure, bankruptcy losses cost our economy $82 billion in 2005. On the other hand, it looks as if, because of the new law, bankruptcy losses for 2006 will only be about $22.5 billion. Let me repeat: $82 billion in 2005 and $22.5 billion in 2006 after the law was put in effect.

We are not talking peanuts. That is a substantial savings for our economy. That is around $60 billion that would have been lost, that would have put a drag on our economy. And I am confidant that at least some of that money has been or will be redirected to economic growth. If this isn't success, I don't know what is.

It is also important to remember the unprecedented new consumer protections included in the new bankruptcy law. Let me mention some of them. Retirement savings receive more protections from the reach of creditors. Likewise, education savings also receive enhanced protections under the new law. And lenders who won't compromise with financially-troubled borrowers can be penalized for not negotiating out-of-court settlements.

People considering filing for bankruptcy now have access to no-cost or low-cost credit counseling and financial education. We want people who make bad financial choices to learn how to deal with their finances and quit the spending cycle. After all, better educated consumers are a benefit to everyone. The law even encourages education of young people on how to manage their money. And credit card companies are required by the new law to warn consumers about the dangers of making only minimum payments and to clearly identify payment amounts.

Moreover, bankruptcy mills that deceived people into filing for bankruptcy when they had other options available are now subject to new regulation. People should be aware that bankruptcy is not the only way out in times of financial trouble. Even a Federal Trade Commission Alert warned against bankruptcy mills and advised the American consumer that filing for bankruptcy adversely affects an individual's credit rating. Bankruptcy should be a last resort, rather than the first stop in regaining one's financial bearings.

So, all in all, Public Law 109-8 contains some of the most sweeping consumer protections enacted by Congress in a long time.

Of course, as I said earlier, it is too early to gauge the full impact of Public Law 109-8. Bankruptcy attorneys so frightened consumers by exaggerating the impact of bankruptcy reform that many consumers rushed to file prior to enactment of the law. And after the law was enacted, many consumers who truly need bankruptcy were scared away.

Some of the consumer protections contained in the law--such as minimum-payment warnings for credit cards and the like--have not yet been implemented by the Federal Reserve.

Also, the debtor attorneys who want to operate bankruptcy mills are seeking to get out from under the new regulations by claiming in court to have a constitutional right to advise consumers to run up debt on the eve of bankruptcy and not comply with the new law. I am pleased that the Justice Department is aggressively resisting this effort. These lawyers just want a license to go back to their old ways of making a quick buck by shuffling unsuspecting consumers into bankruptcy without advising them of the

downsides of bankruptcy or their alternatives. These lawyers also are dragging down our economy. Bankruptcy should be reserved for those persons who have no other options, not for people who use clever legal advice to make big purchases on the eve of bankruptcy with no intention of ever repaying the debt because they can wipe away their debts clean, no questions asked.

So I will keep a watchful eye on developments in the future. But for now, almost one year later, bankruptcy reform seems to have been a success.

Mr. President, today Senator Baucus and I are pleased to introduce the Tax Technical Corrections Act of 2006.

Technical Corrections measures are routine for major tax acts, and are necessary to ensure that the provisions of the acts are working consistently with Congressional intent, 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 staff of the Treasury Department. All of this work is performed with the participation and guidance of the non-partisan staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. A technical enters the list only if all staffs agree it is appropriate.

By filing this bill, we hope interested parties and practitioners will comment and provide direction on further edits, additions, or deletions. These comments should be submitted in a timely manner, by the end of October. It is our hope that we may move this package of technicals in November if possible.

We ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill print in the Record.

Mr. President, today Senator Baucus and I are pleased to introduce the Tax Technical Corrections Act of 2006.

Technical Corrections measures are routine for major tax acts, and are necessary to ensure that the provisions of the acts are working consistently with Congressional intent, 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 staff of the Treasury Department. All of this work is performed with the participation and guidance of the non-partisan staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. A technical enters the list only if all staffs agree it is appropriate.

By filing this bill, we hope interested parties and practitioners will comment and provide direction on further edits, additions, or deletions. These comments should be submitted in a timely manner, by the end of October. It is our hope that we may move this package of technicals in November if possible.

We ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill print in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act. This legislation achieves some important objectives that I have been working on for some time.

It will strengthen our port security operations and resources within the United States Customs and Border Protection.

It authorizes and approves current programs for securing our Nation's trade, and it provides direction for further strengthening of these programs as technological advances permit.

It requires our Federal agencies to cooperate and better coordinate their contingency planning in the event there is a security breach. In sum, this critical legislation will empower personnel in the Department of Homeland Security to stay one step ahead of the terrorists who seek to wreak economic havoc and physical destruction on our Nation.

At the same time, this legislation strengthens our Nation's economic security by realigning resources to ensure better efficiency in the administration of customs laws within the United States Customs and Border Protection, as well as trade facilitation functions within the agency and elsewhere in the Department of Homeland Security. Unfortunately, this legislation falls short in one critical area. The Senate-passed bill included robust sections on rail and mass transit security. But objections from the House have prevented us from including those provisions in the conference report.

I find this extremely shortsighted. It demonstrates a troubling lack of leadership. I want to make clear that I strongly supported the Senate-passed provisions on rail and mass transit security, and I strongly oppose their omission from this conference report.

But because this legislation contains so many provisions critical to the security of our Nation, I will support the conference report. It is certainly better than the alternative. I hope my colleagues on the House side realize that we have lost an opportunity here. At a minimum, it would take another several months for us to be in a position to enact rail and mass transit security legislation into law. In the meantime, this important aspect of our Nation's security will not get the rightful attention that it needs.

That being said, this legislation does significantly strengthen our Nation's security. I want to thank my colleagues, particularly the chairmen and ranking members of the Commerce and Homeland Security Committees in the Senate, as well as the chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Coleman, for their constructive engagement with me and Senator Baucus these past few months. Together we produced a very good bill, much of which is retained in this conference report. I urge its support so that we can get this critical legislation to the President's desk as soon as possible.

Mr. President, we hear on a daily basis about the war we are currently engaged in, the war on terror, but I don't think most of us stop to think about what that actually means.

As citizens of the greatest country in the world, we have become so accustomed to all the rights afforded us by our Constitution that we now take them for granted. We are incredibly fortunate to live in a nation where our freedom and safety is our Government's first priority.

We aren't living in the world I grew up in. Our Nation was rocked to its core 5 years ago when we were attacked on our own soil. Thousands of innocent Americans were murdered simply because they lived in the one country that, above all others, embodies freedom and democracy. The mastermind behind those attacks was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is now in custody and soon will be brought to justice.

In the aftermath of these attacks, Congress authorized our President to ``use all necessary force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.'' President Bush used this authorization, combined with his constitutional powers to make these sorts of judgments during times of war, to try enemy combatants in military commissions.

Earlier this month, we observed the 5-year anniversary of the horrific attacks on America. I cannot imagine the reaction that would have come if, 5 years ago, Members of Congress had stood on this floor and suggested that we wouldn't do all we could to prevent another attack on our country. Five years ago, with the images of the collapsing Twin Towers and the burning Pentagon and the smoldering Pennsylvania field seared into our memories, we stood united in the proposition that we intended to protect Americans first.

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which the Supreme Court decided earlier this year, the Court ruled that the administration's use of military commissions to try unlawful enemy combatants violated international law. This decision forced our interrogators, key in defending America from terrorist attack, to curtail their investigations. Without a clarification of the vague requirements, these interrogators might be subject to prosecution for war crimes. It also brought to an end the prosecution of unlawful enemy combatants through the military commissions.

It is key to point out that military commissions have been used throughout American history to bring enemy combatants to justice since before the United States was even officially formed. George Washington used them during the American Revolution, and since our Constitution was ratified, Presidents have used military commissions to try those who seek to harm Americans during every major conflict. Some of our most popular Presidents from history have taken this route, including Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Whenever the leaders of this great Nation have seen threats posed by those who refuse to abide by the rules of war, they have taken the necessary steps to protect us.

Our President has come to us and asked for help in trying these terrorists whose sole goal is to kill those who love freedom. He has asked for our help in ensuring that those investigating potential terrorist plots against our Nation and our citizens are secure from arbitrary prosecution for undefined war crimes. These people are part of our first line of defense in securing the safety of our country--we owe it to them to protect them. Because of the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan, the only way these terrorists will be brought to justice and our interrogators will be protected for doing their jobs is for Congress to write a new law codifying procedures for military commissions and clarifying our obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

I firmly believe that enemy combatants in our custody enjoyed ample due process in the military commissions established by the administration, which were brought to a halt by the Supreme Court. The compromise that we are considering here today gives more rights to terrorists who were caught trying to harm America and our allies than our own servicemembers would receive elsewhere, more than is required by the Geneva Conventions--yet some are still demanding more.

Mr. President, it is essential that we protect human dignity at every opportunity, but we have gone well beyond that with this legislation. The legislation before us responds to the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan and seeks to protect national security while ensuring that the terrorists who seek to destroy America are properly dealt with. This bill affords these unlawful enemy combatants rights that they themselves would never consider granting American soldiers. It is beyond reasonable, beyond fair, and beyond time for Congress to act. We must pass this bill and reinstate the programs that, I believe, have been a crucial part of our Nation's security over the last 5 years.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Fiscal Accountability, Integrity and Responsibility in SCHIP'' or FAIR-SCHIP Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Johnny Isakson, R-GA, Senator Saxby Chambless, R-GA, Senator Richard Burr, R- NC and Senator Lisa Murkowski, R-AK. This legislation is a targeted one year approach to addressing a looming problem in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

According to estimates prepared by the Congressional Research Service, as many as 17 States will run out of SCHIP funds in 2007. Several States will run shortfalls in the hundreds of millions of dollars. These shortfalls will result in States having to limit the coverage available to low-income children. These shortfalls are deep and they will get deeper.

One of my principal objectives in the 110th Congress will be to reauthorize the SCHIP program. There are a number of compelling issues associated with the SCHIP program that will require thoughtful review and discussion by Members of Congress.

Reauthorization will not be easy. Legislating on an issue as complex and sensitive as children's health care is never easy. However, if the Congress does not act to address some of these policies as well as the SCHIP formula, one thing is certain: The current State entitlement is not sufficient, in the long term, to cover the costs of maintaining the current level of coverage provided by the States.

I am aware of legislation introduced in the Senate and the House that would simply appropriate additional funds to cover the SCHIP shortfalls. This is not a viable option.

If the Congress perpetuates a scenario where the SCHIP funding formula is not improved and other programmatic changes are not enacted, yet State SCHIP shortfalls covered year after year, there will be no practical difference between SCHIP, which is a capped allotment, and Medicaid, which is an open ended entitlement.

I do not believe there is majority support for turning the SCHIP program into an entitlement program. I am concerned what going down a path that essentially does treat SCHIP as a de facto entitlement program means for the long standing viability of SCHIP. Therefore, the approach envisioned in FAIR-SCHIP takes a balanced, moderate approach to addressing this issue.

FAIR-SCHIP recognizes that additional resources will be needed if States are to be able to continue to provide the current level of coverage for children.

FAIR-SCHIP also recognizes that funding under the SCHIP programs can be more equitably distributed.

FAIR-SCHIP takes a moderate, balanced approach by appropriating approximately half of the estimated Fiscal Year 07 shortfall.

FAIR-SCHIP also includes a modest redistribution scenario that would occur in the second half of the fiscal year and only affect the 05 allotments of States which have a 200 percent surplus of SCHIP funds, relative to their projected 07 spending.

FAIR-SCHIP is a fiscally sound, responsible approach to the issue of SCHIP shortfalls that will position the Congress to achieve important programmatic improvements in the 110th Congress, when the SCHIP program will need to be reauthorized.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I hope my colleagues will support the approach envisioned by FAIR-

Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of telling my colleagues that I am going to miss my colleague.

Mr. President, I rise to tell the Senator from Vermont that I am going to miss him in the Senate and still consider him a friend. I hope to have a long relationship with him, even in his retirement. I am that Senator that Jim Jeffords, the Senator from Vermont, referred to as the one remaining Republican of the class of 1974. There were 17 of us. I think there were about 70 Democrats. It was a bad year for Republicans. You couldn't even put the word Republican on your literature. It was the year Nixon resigned.

There were only 140 of us in the House of Representatives at that time. I don't know whether Senator Jeffords felt this way, but I felt this way, that it was probably the end of the Republican Party. Well, I was wrong. He and I have been reelected to serve together, to serve our respective constituents.

I remember Senator Jeffords as an outstanding member of the Agriculture Committee in the House of Representatives the 6 years I served on that committee. Then there was a period of time where I was a Member of the Senate and he still stayed in the House of Representatives. Our friendship still held. But working together--you know how it is in Congress, the House and Senate; there is a Grand Canyon between us sometimes, and we don't communicate as much as we ought to. Consequently, it was like getting reacquainted with Senator Jeffords again when he came to the Senate. I was glad then and I am very glad now that he continued his service.

I think he is an outstanding example of probably what is an unacknowledged principle of political science--at least it is a feeling I have about the people of our country--that if you serve honorably where you are at a certain time and do the best job possible, you are going to have opportunities to enhance your position within public service. So as a State senator, then as an attorney general, then as a Congressman, and then as a Senator for the people of Vermont, I believe he got to be a Senator because people in Vermont recognized him, as a State senator, as a Congressman, and as an attorney general,

as a person who was not there because of political ambition, wanting to rise to the top, but a person, in each stage of his public service life, who did what that job required and did it well. People recognized that and in the end of the process, he came to the Senate.

In every relationship I have had with Senator Jeffords, whether he was Republican or an Independent, it has always been one that has been friendly and honorable and honest, and, most importantly, to describe him as a humanitarian as he approached public policy.

It seemed to me that as a Member of the Senate, whether as an Independent or as a Republican, Senator Jeffords brought forth what it takes to get things done in the Senate, and that is moderation. It doesn't matter whether it is a bill that is representing the philosophy of the extreme left or a bill that represents the philosophy of the extreme right, nothing such as that is going to get through the Senate. Eventually you have to have people come together seeking a middle ground, a bipartisan approach to get things done. It seems to me, in every respect, that is what Senator Jeffords did--he sought moderation because that is how you get solutions and that is the only way the Senate produces.

I compliment him on his dedicated public service. I congratulate him on his long service to the people of the United States and the people of Vermont. I will miss working with him. I will miss him, but I hope we have opportunities to have great relationships for the rest of our lives.

Mr. President, yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the Senate amendment to S. 3525, which represents the bipartisan and bicameral agreement on the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006.

I was pleased to have introduced the Senate amendment with my friend and partner on the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Max Baucus. Senator Baucus and I were joined by Senator Orrin G. Hatch, and Senator John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and Senator Olympia J. Snowe. All of these members have a long history of support for important programs to improve the well-being of children.

This important legislation reauthorizes the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program which provides services to families for family support, family preservation, time-limited reunification of families, and for adoption and post-adoption services. These are critical funding streams, and the reauthorization of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program ensures that families can rely on these preventative and supportive services.

The legislation also aligns the Child Welfare Services Act with the prevention activities of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program by providing incentives to States to invest in prevention services while allowing States to continue current State spending on existing State priorities.

S. 3525 provides support for increased caseworker visits as well as adopts a version of President Bush's proposal to provide a voucher for mentoring services for children of prisoners.

Additionally, the legislation increases access for funding for Indian tribes, which was a key priority of both Senator Baucus and Senator Kent Conrad.

The legislation that will soon be signed by the President also includes grants for regional partnerships to address the growing problem of methamphetamine and other substance abuse and addictions that have had a substantial impact on child welfare systems and services.

Funding for these competitive grants was a key priority of mine, and I am pleased that the compromise we were able to work out with the House maintains the support for grants to improve the outcomes for children affected by methamphetamine abuse and addiction.

Mr. President, the Senate Finance Committee did a great deal of work on issues relating to child welfare. We held the first full committee hearing in 10 years on child welfare, and we held an additional hearing on the effects of the methamphetamine epidemic on the child welfare system. We worked on a bipartisan basis to mark up and pass the Improving Outcomes for Children Affected by Meth Act of 2005. Key provisions of that bill are features in the legislation which will soon be signed into law.

But there is more that can be done to strengthen and improve child welfare services. I intend to continue to work on a bipartisan basis to develop and enact reforms to ensure that all children have access to loving, permanent homes.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the staff who worked tirelessly to get this bill done. Members of Congress in both the House and the Senate are very well served by our staffs. These men and women care a great deal about these programs, and we are indebted to them for their insights and analysis.

I am grateful to the talented staff from the office of Senator Baucus, specifically, Diedra Henry-Spires, Doug Steiger, and Michelle Easton. Additionally, I am grateful to Senator Rockefeller's extremely knowledgeable aid Barbara Pryor.

I appreciate the work of the staff on the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the House Committee on Ways and Means, Matt Weidinger and Christine Calpin for the majority and Nick Gwyn and Sonja Nesbit for the minority.

I also thank the dedicated analyst from the Congressional Research Service, Emilie Stoltzfus who provided staff with invaluable expertise on child welfare programs.

Thanks to Christina Hawley Anthony from the Congressional Budget Office as well as legislative counsels Ruth Ernst and James Grossman.

Finally, I appreciate the efforts of my own Finance Committee policy lead on this issue, Becky Shipp as well as Mark Hayes, Ted Totman, and Kolan Davis.

Mr. President, because a formal conference was not convened on this bill, there is no conference report filed. However, the staff has prepared a section-by-section analysis of the Senate-House agreement for purposes of the legislative history.

Mr. President, some will say this has been a ``do nothing congress.'' I couldn't disagree more, and I believe that the children and families served by this legislation would disagree as well.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the section-by-section analysis to which I referred be printed in the Record.