Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to speak for a few minutes in morning business.

In August, I received a letter from a constituent, Mr. John Dodgen, of Humboldt, IA. Along with the letter, Mr. Dodgen enclosed a copy of an opinion piece he authored regarding the war on terror that was published in the local newspaper.

In his opinion piece, Mr. Dodgen rightly asserts that the United States is engaged in a global war on terror with an enemy whose goal is the elimination of the United States. I also strongly agree with his premise that we must take the fight to the terrorists where they operate or we will be forced to confront them on our soil. This is a war that we must win, and we must remain on the offense until the war is won.

Mr. Dodgen raises some compelling thoughts in his opinion piece. Rather than try to summarize all of Mr. Dodgen's points and recommendations, I would like to submit for the Record his thoughts on controlling terrorism.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of Mr. Dodgen's opinion piece be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Murkowski in sponsoring a resolution commemorating the annual Red Ribbon Week celebrated October 23-31. Red Ribbon Week encourages individuals, families, and communities to take a stand against alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drug use. I hope the rest of the Senate will join in supporting this resolution and support this very important campaign.

The tradition of Red Ribbon Week, now in its twenty-first year of wearing and displaying red ribbons, started following the assassination of U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency Special Agent Enrique ``Kiki'' Camarena. In an effort to honor his memory and unite in the battle against drug crime and abuse, friends, neighbors, and students from his home town began wearing red ribbons. Shortly thereafter, the National Family Partnership took the celebration nationwide. Since then, the Red Ribbon campaign has reached millions of children, families, and communities across the country, spreading the message about the destructive effects of drugs.

In my State of Iowa, this year's theme for Red Ribbon Week is Take a Stand--Be Drug Free. Schools and community groups across the State are organizing a variety of activities including pledges, contests, workshops, rallies, theatrical and musical performances, and other family and educational events all designed to educate our children on the negative effects of drugs and promote a drug-free environment.

Research tells us that the longer a child stays drug-free the less likely they will become addicted or even try illegal drugs. This is why it is so important to maintain a coherent anti-drug message that begins early in adolescence and continues throughout the growing years. Such an effort must involve parents, communities, and young people. Red Ribbon Week provides each of us the opportunity to take a stand by helping our children make the right decisions when it comes to drugs.

In light of the growing epidemic of methamphetamine abuse throughout the Nation and especially in my State of Iowa, this year's Red Ribbon Week holds greater importance. I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this resolution to demonstrate our commitment to raising awareness about drugs and encourage everyone to make healthy choices.

I also call on Chairman Chambliss to help Senator Harkin and me get much-needed answers to what USDA has done to implement the GAO recommendations. There has been a lack of believability regarding the information generated by the Livestock Mandatory Reporting program, many producers across Iowa and many parts of the Nation feel strongly that the information would be more valuable if the program had more credibility through improved transparency.

Last year, Senator Harkin and I introduced legislation, that passed the Senate by unanimous consent, that would extend the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act for one-year to allow additional time to review the GAO recommendations and develop needed modifications to the law to improve the functioning and operation of the program. Unfortunately, the House refused to take up the bill and the law expired. I conditioned my support of any multi-year extension or revision of the Livestock Mandatory Reporting program on carrying out the GAO study results. Now we are at a crucial point with the legislative session coming to a close. Senator Harkin and I realize that we are facing strong opposition from the packing industry on moving a Senate version that includes the GAO recommendations. I ask for assurances from Chairman Chambliss that he will work with Senator Harkin and me to move our proposed legislative changes forward.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I would like to use my 10 minutes that has been allocated to me on the Oman Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5684, the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. The United

States-Oman Free Trade Agreement will benefit U.S. farmers, workers, and businesses. It will lead to economic growth and enhance the predictability of the rule of law in Oman, a reliable ally of the United States in the Middle East.

The United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement will also serve as a model for other free-trade agreements in the Middle East.

In this way, the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement will contribute to the formation of a Middle East free trade area, a development that would provide major economic and political benefits for the United States.

Let me begin by discussing the economic gains that this agreement will bring to the United States. On the day that the agreement goes into effect, Oman will no longer impose any tariffs on U.S.-produced consumer and industrial products. The agreement will also benefit U.S. farmers as some 87 percent Oman's tariff lines will go to zero for U.S. agricultural products on day one of the agreement. Oman's remaining tariffs on U.S. farm products will be phased out over 10 years.

In addition, the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement will result in substantial improvements in market access for U.S. service providers and new protections for U.S. investors.

Given the benefits that it will provide to the United States, the agreement has been endorsed by groups as varied as the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Chemistry Council, the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, the National Foreign Trade Council, and the United States-Middle East Free Trade Coalition, an entity consisting of over 110 U.S. companies and associations supporting trade expansion in the Middle East.

The United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement will result in new market opportunities for farmers, workers, and businesses throughout the United States, including those in Iowa.

For example, the Midamar Corporation--a small business located in Cedar Rapids, IA, that specializes in halal foods--anticipates that the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement will lead to new sales of Iowa- produced foods in Oman. Profit margins in the food sector are very low, and Oman's current average applied tariff of 5 percent on many of Midamar's products cuts into the company's profits.

With Oman's tariffs on many of Midamar's products going to zero on day one of the agreement, Midamar will have significantly improved access to the Omani market immediately upon implementation of the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement.

At least two other Iowa businesses expect to benefit from the free- trade agreement. The HNI Corporation of Muscatine is the second largest manufacturer of office furniture in North America, and HNI is specifically targeting the fast-growing market of the Middle East. HNI anticipates that the agreement will provide improved opportunities for it to sell its products in Oman.

Likewise, Lennox--which manufactures residential heating and cooling products in Marshalltown--predicts that it will gain from the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement. Thus, the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement could have a direct impact on Iowans in Cedar Rapids, Muscatine, and Marshalltown. This agreement will benefit people in other States as well.

I am confident that the Oman Free Trade Agreement will ultimately lead to new market access opportunities for American products in yet more Middle Eastern countries. President Bush is advocating the development of a United States-Middle East free trade area by 2013, and the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement is another building block toward the accomplishment of this goal.

The United States has already implemented free-trade agreements with four other countries in the Middle East--Bahrain, Israel, Jordan, and Morocco.

A completed United States-Middle East free trade area would result in significantly improved market access for U.S. farm, consumer, and industrial products in a region of the world populated by 350 million people that is growing quickly.

Such an arrangement would also benefit people throughout the Arab world by providing needed economic reforms. So a United States-Middle East free trade area is in the best interests of the people of the Middle East, and it would advance American interests as well.

In addition to providing new economic opportunities for the United States, the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement will contribute to the security of our country. Oman is a consistent ally of the United States in an unstable part of the world. Given that the United States is currently engaged militarily in two countries in the region, now is a particularly appropriate time for us to further cement our close ties with Oman.

By improving economic conditions in Oman, I am convinced that the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement will contribute to the stability of that country. Such stability will help solidify Oman's position as a moderate Arab country and a friend of the United States.

The United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement is a strong agreement. It will provide economic benefits for the United States. It will also benefit Oman, a consistent ally of the United States.

I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 5684, the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to pay tribute to 16 outstanding scholars who have recently been announced as 2006 Davidson fellows. The Davidson Institute scholarships promote and reward students under 18 years old who have undertaken invaluable projects and studies for the greater good of our country and the world. These individuals are more than deserving of this great honor. Allow me to introduce each of the scholars and describe a bit about them and their projects.

At the age of 12, Drew Petersen, of Oradell, NJ, is the youngest student ever accepted into the Manhattan School of Music Conducting Program. He hopes to become a performing pianist, composer, and conductor. Drew's project is entitled ``Keeping Classical Music Alive.'' He hopes that he can reach audiences through his piano performances and inspire them to become more active and engaged listeners in all areas of their lives.

Shivani Sud, a 16-year-old from Durham, NC, discovered a technology to deliver chemotherapeutic molecules to cancerous cells with increased efficiency. Her project is entitled ``HIV-1 Tat and IGK-Chain Secretion Based Protein Transduction: a Novel Strategy for Molecule Delivery.'' Shivani's research can help combat cancer and infectious diseases through more effective chemotherapy treatments. A senior at Jordan High School, Shivani hopes to eventually perform research in the field of medicine as a physician scientist.

Heather Engebretson is a 16-year-old from Tuscaloosa, AL, who views music as a method of communication and a tool for social progress. Heather's portfolio, ``Music as a Universal Communication,'' showcases her wide range of prestigiously awarded musical talents. Heather will attend the University of Alabama this fall majoring in vocal performance, in hopes that the combination of this experience and the courses she has taken through the Johns Hopkins distance learning program will help her in someday fulfilling her dream of becoming an opera singer.

The discoveries of 17-year-old Michael Viscardi from San Diego, CA, can potentially aid in next-generation aircraft design, aerodynamics, medical imaging, astronomy, heat flow and fluid dynamics. Michael's project, ``On the Solution of the Dirichlet Problem with Rational Holomorphic Boundary Data,'' portrays his solution of the thermal equilibrium of a heated metal plate. Michael will attend Harvard and the New England Conservatory in the fall, majoring in mathematics and violin performance respectively, and I have no doubt that he has the potential to become both a successful mathematics professor and a professional violinist.

As a 17-year-old woman from Austin, TX, Stephanie Chen has already established herself as an award-winning musician. Stephanie explores each piece in her piano portfolio, ``A Musical Painting,'' by creating images in her mind then, in her performance, conveying this passion to the audience. Stephanie is entering her senior year at Westwood High School and would like to pursue medical studies in college and play the piano professionally.

Kyle Dacuyan is a 16-year-old young man from Sterling, VA, with a passion for writing. Kyle illustrates that he is able to empathize with other viewpoints throughout his portfolio entitled ``What Have You Been, Where Have You Gone.'' Kyle's work examines familial relationships, complexities and oddities, and exhibits his unflinchingly honest look at pride, love, and social class. As he enters his senior year at Potomac Falls High School, Kyle hopes to continue his lifelong passion for writing through his pursuit of college degrees in English and writing. Kyle also hopes to someday teach at the college level.

Seventeen-year-old Varun Kumar, of Bellaire, TX, is determined to improve diagnostics in the field of medicine through more effective magnetic resonance imaging, MRI. The implications of Varun's research, found in his portfolio entitled ``Novel Properties in Europium DOTA-- tetramide Complex for use in MRI Contrast Agent,'' could provide a more comprehensive and less invasive form of diagnosis in almost every field of medicine. Varun is a recent graduate of Bellaire High School and will be attending Rice University in the fall. He plans to major in biochemistry and pursue a career in medicine or medical research, and I wish him the very best of luck.

Sheela Krishnan is a 17-year-old young woman from Suffren, NY, who analyzed Paenicbacillus larvae, the bacterium that causes American foulbrood disease, AFB, a fatal disease that attacks honeybee larvae. Sheela created a safe, non-invasive and inexpensive preventative measure to protect honeybees in vivo from AFB. Sheela portrays her work in her portfolio entitled ``Isolation and Characterization of a Potential Probiotic Cocktail for the Control of American Foulbrood in Domestic Honeybees.'' Sheela is a recent high school graduate and will be attending Brown University as a member of the 8-year liberal medical education program. She hopes to major in both anthropology and biology and then go on to become a doctor.

The research of 17-year-old Adam Solomon, of Bellmore, NY, can help unlock clues about stellar evolution and formation, the history of our galaxy, and the formation of planetary systems. Displayed in his portfolio entitled ``The Effects of Age on Brown Dwarf Spectral Features in the Near-Infrared'' is Adam's creation of an analytical tool for estimating a brown dwarf's age and mass. Adam will attend Yale University where he plans to major in astronomy and physics and hopes to move on to the University of Cambridge for a master's then on to Caltech or Harvard for a doctorate degree.

At the age of 17, Yi Sun, of San Jose, CA, applied combinatorial mathematics to derive a formula for the expected winding number of a random walk on a unit lattice. Scientists can use this research to predict how many times the polymer will coil around an obstacle, or rod, thus, indicating the strength of the polymer. Yi's astounding research is displayed in his portfolio entitled, ``Combinatorics: On the Expected Winding Number of a Random Walk on the Unit Lattice,'' and can be used in physics, computer science and material science. Yi recently graduated from The Harker School and will be attending Harvard in the fall. Yi plans to major in mathematics and physics and hopes to pursue careers in both fields.

Thirteen-year-old Travis Johnson, of Milwaukie, OR, has been studying classical guitar since he was 8. Travis is establishing himself as an award-winning musician, and his portfolio is entitled ``Trails of Hope: The Importance of Adding New Music to the Classical Repertoire.'' Travis is currently home-

schooled and taught privately by teachers outside of the home. He studies music at Marylhurst University. Master guitar classes have played a large role in his life the past few years, and likely will play a role in his career ambition to become a classical guitarist.

Albert Shieh is a 16-year-old young man from Paradise Valley, AZ, who created a computational tool used to analyze genetic sequence variability in humans, which will help in developing a better understanding of gene sequence variations that occur when a single nucleotide in the genome sequence is altered. Albert's research portfolio, ``A Novel Algorithm for Automated SNP Genotyping,'' holds the promise to find the genetic basis for Alzheimer's disease, autism, and bipolar disorder with highly targeted, personalized treatments. Albert recently graduated from Chaparral High School and will attend Harvard in the fall and major in mathematics. Albert aspires to have a career as an intellectual property lawyer.

Anna Stalker, a 15-year-old young woman from Birmingham, AL, addresses the persistent search for truth through different literary expressions and experiences in her portfolio, ``The Reincarnation Journals.'' In imagistic works, Anna explores the search for truth and beauty through depictions of human interaction and the interactions of the larger cosmos. When Anna's individual pieces are gathered, a larger meaning emerges. Entering her junior year at The Alamont School, Anna's main source of academic and social enrichment is the Duke Talent Identification Program, TIP. Although she has no concrete career goals yet, she is sure of one thing--she wants her life to be a meaningful reflection of her passions.

A 17-year-old young woman from Beaverton, OR, Anarghya Vardhana worked in the field of number theory to develop new starting values for the Lucas-Lehmer primality test. Her theorem/method, found in her portfolio entitled ``Novel Method of Computing Jacobi Symbols for Mersenne Numbers,'' can directly contribute to the pharmaceutical, chemical, materials, financial and information technology industries. Her theory also has broad implications in cryptography, specifically enhancing encryption systems to protect against identity theft. A recent high school graduate, Anarghya will attend Stanford University in the fall, and is leaning towards a major in physics or biology combined with a math major or minor.

Xin--Cindy--Wang is a 17-year-old from Geneva, IL, and is a recent graduate of the Illinois Math and Science Academy. Displayed in her portfolio, ``nm2608A, A New Naturally Arising Mouse Model for Human Autosomal Recessive Achromatopsia 2,'' is Xin's identification of a gene responsible for complete colorblindness in mice. Spanning genetics and ophthalmology, her results may one day be used to help people with achromatopsia 2, the most severe form of colorblindness, in which people can only see in shades of gray. I wish Xin much luck as she begins attending Harvard in the fall, where she will be working towards a major in a biology-related field and becoming a college professor.

At the age of 16, Steven Wu, of Folsom, CA, is contributing to the scientific world in a major way. Steven designed a computer simulation algorithm that produces superior results when compared with the current commercial software in terms of better simulation of ion movement due to more accurate electrical field data. Steven's project is entitled ``Optimizing Quadruple Ion Trap Geometry by Computer Simulations.'' Advancements in ion trap geometry can improve all areas of laboratory science through mass spectrometry, as well as better monitoring of atmospheric pollutants and detecting hazardous chemical substances. Steven will be a senior at Mira Loma High School this fall. He plans to major in biomedical engineering/bioengineering, combining his interests in biochemistry and mathematics and eventually become a research physician/scientist.

As I said, these young men and women are more than deserving of the awards they have earned. Through hard work and determination, these individuals have already made changes in the fields of science, writing, and mathematics, which will no doubt improve the lives of the many others all over the world. As the President indicated in his State of the Union address, our country's future competitiveness in the global economy will depend on bright and promising young people. Learning about these 16 remarkable students makes me optimistic about our Nation's future. I thank the Davidson Institute for their efforts to encourage and nurture our future leaders in a variety of fields and I thank these young and talented scholars for all of their innovative contributions to society.

Mr. President, I would like to dispel claims being put forward by some that the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement will threaten U.S. national security. These critics of the agreement claim that it will give foreign port operators an absolute right to establish or acquire operations to run port facilities in the United States. They contend that, in this way, the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement could harm our national security. These claims are just plain wrong.

First of all, the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement provides no new rights for Omanis or others to supply port related services in the United States. Omani companies are presently able to supply such services. The Oman agreement simply mirrors current U.S. law. So it is incorrect for anyone to claim that this trade agreement creates new rights for Omanis or others to contract with U.S. port owners to perform port services.

In addition, U.S.--law specifically the Exon-Florio amendment to the Defense Production Act of 1950--authorizes the President to block foreign investment that would threaten our national security, including investments in port operations. The President delegates the authority to monitor and review foreign investments to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS. This free-trade agreement will not change the process of CFIUS in reviewing proposed investment in the United States. Thus, if the President determines that the investments of Oman or other countries in port services in the United States

will threaten our national security, U.S. law provides that he can block such investments. The U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement in no way changes this existing law.

Moreover, the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement at article 21.2 contains a ``national security'' exception. This article provides that nothing in the agreement can prevent the United States from taking any action that we consider necessary to protect our essential security interests. This exception is self-judging, which means that solely the United States can decide what constitutes our essential security interests. Contrary to the claims of some critics, neither an investor-state arbitration tribunal nor a dispute settlement panel has the authority to second-guess what the United States determines to be in its essential security interest. After all, once the United States invokes the national security exemption, there's nothing for a tribunal or panel to review.

So it is clear that the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement doesn't diminish the right of the United States to determine whether to block any foreign investment in our country, including in port services. It is also clear that the Oman trade agreement doesn't create any new rights for Oman to supply port related services in the United States. Anyone who says otherwise is ignoring the facts.

The U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement will benefit the United States. It will not pose security threats for the United States. If it did, I wouldn't be supporting it. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 5684, the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senate is about to pass the Port Security Improvement Act of 2006. This important legislation is the result of months of hard work between the Committee on Finance, which I chair, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. I thank again Chairman Stevens and Chairman Collins, as well as Senator Coleman, Senator Inouye and Senator Lieberman, and of course Senator Baucus, the ranking member on the Finance Committee, for coming together with me to produce a significant and balanced piece of legislation that advances both the trade and economic security interests of our Nation.

As I have noted previously, those who intend harm to our Nation seek to inflict economic as well as physical injury. We must be mindful of both concerns as we defend the homeland. I am pleased to say that we in the Senate have done our part. The committees of jurisdiction came together, worked together, and produced a bill that will empower the Department of Homeland Security, and in particular the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, to better meet the dual responsibilities of securing the homeland and protecting the economic security of our Nation. Our legislation has been on the floor for a week, during which the Senate has worked its will. I look forward to working out our differences with the House so that we can get this legislation to the President's desk as soon as possible.

I want to take a moment to thank the many staff who have worked so hard and so long to make this legislation a reality. On the Finance Committee, that begins with my chief counsel and staff director, Kolan Davis, whose skilled leadership is key to the advancement of my agenda on the committee. My international trade counsel, Stephen Schaefer, deserves special mention. Stephen is a very smart trade counsel, a creative problem solver, and a dedicated public servant. Tiffany McCullen Atwell, my international trade policy adviser, also deserves special mention. Tiffany was tireless in her efforts and a very strong and effective advocate for the Finance Committee. Together, their hard work and advocacy contributed significantly to the development of this legislation. I also want to recognize the other members of my trade staff, David Johanson, who serves me as international trade counsel, and Claudia Bridgeford, my international trade policy assistant. Their support is critical to my success.

Senator Baucus's trade staff also deserves recognition. The Democratic staff director on the Finance Committee, Russ Sullivan, and the deputy staff director, Bill Dauster, worked well with my staff throughout the process. I also appreciate the efforts of Brian Pomper, Senator Baucus's chief, international trade counsel, and in particular Senator Baucus's international trade adviser, Anya Landau, who worked so closely and so well with my staff in this effort. And I want to acknowledge the other members of Senator Baucus's trade staff, Demetrios Marantis, Chelsea Thomas, Janis Lazda, and Mary Lisa Madell.

Finally, I would like to thank Polly Craighill, senior counsel in the Office of the Senate Legislative Counsel, for the many hours she put into drafting and improving this legislation. Not only is Polly a perfectionist, but she also drives others to meet her high expectations and for that I am personally grateful. The bill before the Senate is much improved by virtue of her patience, dedication, and expertise.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, in introducing the Medicare Data Access and Research Act. Senator Baucus and I have long enjoyed a good working relationship in our roles as chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee. Our work on this bill once again demonstrates our commitment to working in a bipartisan manner.

The Medicare Data Access and Research Act establishes a process through which Federal agencies and other researchers can access Medicare data for the purpose of health services research. This might seem like a pretty mundane issue to some people, but I can assure you that it is far from it. Medicare processes 500 million claims for benefits each year; millions of prescriptions have been filled under the new Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Linking data on hospital and physician services provided to Medicare beneficiaries to prescription drug data will offer a tremendous resource for researchers in our Federal agencies, as well as those based at universities and other research centers. What of research can these data support? They can support studies and analyses related to postmarketing surveillance of prescription drugs and research on drug safety. More concretely, analyzing the Medicare claims data can help agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration FDA, identify situations like the one involving Vioxx more quickly, and provide a new valuable tool to enable the FDA to take swifter action to protect the public's health and well-being.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Institutes of Health all have missions that require the conduct of meticulous health services research. The Medicare database and access to it established under the bill we are introducing today will help these agencies fulfill their missions to study immunization rates; to develop and monitor the use of preventive screenings; conduct research on the clinical comparative effectiveness of prescription drugs; and to help prevent, diagnose, and treat disease.

To ensure access to the data, the bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enter data release agreements on an annual basis with these agencies. In entering the data release agreements, the Secretary must take appropriate steps to protect the confidentiality of the information, while maintaining the ability of researchers at Federal agencies to conduct meaningful analyses.

The bill also permits the Secretary to enter into data use agreements to permit researchers at universities and other organizations to have access to the data. As will be the case for the Federal agencies, these researchers may only use the data for purposes of advancing the public's health. They can conduct studies on the safety, effectiveness, and quality of health services.

Some people might be concerned that these data will be given to just anyone. That is not the case. In applying for data access, researchers at universities and other organizations will have to meet strict criteria. They must have well-documented experience in analyzing the type and volume of data to be provided under the agreement. They must agree to publish and publicly disseminate their research methodology and results. They must obtain approval for their study from a review board. They must comply with all safeguards established by the Secretary to ensure the confidentiality of information. These safeguards cannot permit the disclosure of information to an extent greater than permitted by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and the Privacy Act of 1974.

The final section of the bill ensures that congressional support agencies, including the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service, the Government Accountability Office, and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, also have access to data they need to carry out their functions and responsibilities. This body depends on the research and analyses conducted by those agencies to inform our deliberations and decisions on the Medicare Program.

Last year, Senator Baucus and I introduced the Medicare Value-Based Purchasing Act to establish a pay for performance system under Medicare. That bill was aimed at promoting quality and ensuring value under the Medicare Program. The bill that we are introducing today complements that objective. How can we promote quality and ensure value in Medicare? By having a better understanding of what services are effective, by knowing how we can help beneficiaries avoid illness and disease, by having insight about potential over-use and under-use of health care services, and by identifying troubling trends and patterns. How can we learn about those topics? By supporting rigorous health services research.

Mr. President, the Medicare Data Access and Research Act creates a sound framework for accomplishing that objective.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, in introducing the Medicare Data Access and Research Act. Senator Baucus and I have long enjoyed a good working relationship in our roles as chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee. Our work on this bill once again demonstrates our commitment to working in a bipartisan manner.

The Medicare Data Access and Research Act establishes a process through which Federal agencies and other researchers can access Medicare data for the purpose of health services research. This might seem like a pretty mundane issue to some people, but I can assure you that it is far from it. Medicare processes 500 million claims for benefits each year; millions of prescriptions have been filled under the new Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Linking data on hospital and physician services provided to Medicare beneficiaries to prescription drug data will offer a tremendous resource for researchers in our Federal agencies, as well as those based at universities and other research centers. What of research can these data support? They can support studies and analyses related to postmarketing surveillance of prescription drugs and research on drug safety. More concretely, analyzing the Medicare claims data can help agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration FDA, identify situations like the one involving Vioxx more quickly, and provide a new valuable tool to enable the FDA to take swifter action to protect the public's health and well-being.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Institutes of Health all have missions that require the conduct of meticulous health services research. The Medicare database and access to it established under the bill we are introducing today will help these agencies fulfill their missions to study immunization rates; to develop and monitor the use of preventive screenings; conduct research on the clinical comparative effectiveness of prescription drugs; and to help prevent, diagnose, and treat disease.

To ensure access to the data, the bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enter data release agreements on an annual basis with these agencies. In entering the data release agreements, the Secretary must take appropriate steps to protect the confidentiality of the information, while maintaining the ability of researchers at Federal agencies to conduct meaningful analyses.

The bill also permits the Secretary to enter into data use agreements to permit researchers at universities and other organizations to have access to the data. As will be the case for the Federal agencies, these researchers may only use the data for purposes of advancing the public's health. They can conduct studies on the safety, effectiveness, and quality of health services.

Some people might be concerned that these data will be given to just anyone. That is not the case. In applying for data access, researchers at universities and other organizations will have to meet strict criteria. They must have well-documented experience in analyzing the type and volume of data to be provided under the agreement. They must agree to publish and publicly disseminate their research methodology and results. They must obtain approval for their study from a review board. They must comply with all safeguards established by the Secretary to ensure the confidentiality of information. These safeguards cannot permit the disclosure of information to an extent greater than permitted by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and the Privacy Act of 1974.

The final section of the bill ensures that congressional support agencies, including the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service, the Government Accountability Office, and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, also have access to data they need to carry out their functions and responsibilities. This body depends on the research and analyses conducted by those agencies to inform our deliberations and decisions on the Medicare Program.

Last year, Senator Baucus and I introduced the Medicare Value-Based Purchasing Act to establish a pay for performance system under Medicare. That bill was aimed at promoting quality and ensuring value under the Medicare Program. The bill that we are introducing today complements that objective. How can we promote quality and ensure value in Medicare? By having a better understanding of what services are effective, by knowing how we can help beneficiaries avoid illness and disease, by having insight about potential over-use and under-use of health care services, and by identifying troubling trends and patterns. How can we learn about those topics? By supporting rigorous health services research.

Mr. President, the Medicare Data Access and Research Act creates a sound framework for accomplishing that objective.

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

Mr. President, if I could follow on in the same vein in order to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished Democratic leader, knowing Senator Baucus, I bet he is so busy that he probably didn't even realize he was casting his 10,000th vote. I know it is a very major accomplishment; very few Members do that.

I congratulate him. That signifies a lot of hard work in and of itself, but I think of the really hard work that Senator Baucus does working as a member of the Senate Committee on Finance--sometimes as chairman, sometimes as ranking member--and, more importantly, not just working hard but working in a cooperative way to get things done.

I honor him. I didn't know anything about it. I am glad to hear about it. He should be recognized, and I thank him for the cooperation he has given to me over the years.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, everyone in this Chamber understands that we are in a political season. And that means we are going to be taking political votes. The amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota is indeed one of those votes.

Now, Senator Dorgan is a friend of mine. We have worked together on a number of important issues. But let's face it. This amendment doesn't really do anything. It creates the appearance of a problem and then purports to resolve that illusory problem. So there really isn't any point to the amendment. But we also know, that no Member wants to be portrayed in a 3O-second television commercial as having voted against U.S. ownership of port operations. So I recommend to my colleagues that they support this do-nothing amendment.

Let me explain why this amendment doesn't really do anything. This amendment says that after the date of enactment, the U.S. Trade Representative may not negotiate any bilateral or multilateral trade agreement that limits the Congress in its ability to restrict the operations or ownership of

U.S. ports by a foreign country or person. But the fact is, our trade agreements do not prevent Congress from legislating on any matter, including ports.

First off, Congress can always override an international agreement by passing subsequent legislation. That is an elementary principle of constitutional law. Moreover, our standard implementing legislation for trade agreements expressly states that if a provision of a trade agreement is inconsistent with any provision of U.S. law, then that provision in the trade agreement shall not have effect. In other words, in the event of an inconsistency between a trade agreement and U.S. law, Federal law prevails over the trade agreement. Yet this amendment suggests that the U.S. Trade Representative can somehow transcend our Constitution and Federal law by negotiating a trade agreement.

That is ridiculous. It is false. But as I said, we are in a political season. So I suggest we accept this do-nothing amendment, recognizing it for the political act that it is, and we move on. It is critical that we move this important legislation through the Senate as soon as possible and avoid getting bogged down in politics.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment before the Senate that's been offered as a complete substitute to H.R. 4954. This legislation could not be more timely. The anniversary of September 11 is imminent, a stark reminder that our Nation must remain vigilant in the global war on terror.

This amendment, the Port Security Improvement Act of 2006, is critically important legislation. It strengthens port security operations, both in the United States and abroad so we can prevent threats from reaching our shores in the first place.

This legislation improves existing programs for targeting and inspecting cargo containers so that a dangerous shipment doesn't enter or threaten the Nation. It provides direction for further strengthening of these programs as technological advances permit. And, it calls for greater coordination and cooperation among Federal agencies in contingency planning in the event there is a security breach.

This legislation represents a thoughtful reevaluation of how best to meet the Nation's security interests at United States seaports. We have taken a look at what has been done since 9/11. This legislation builds upon that. Terrorists have proven that they will change their ways to exploit perceived weaknesses in our defenses. We need to stay ahead of them. This legislation empowers our personnel in the Department of Homeland Security and United States Border and Customs Protection to do just that.

At the same time, this legislation includes provisions to strengthen the economic security of our Nation. It's important to remember that in addition to killing innocent Americans, the 9/11 attacks were intended to wreak economic havoc and injury upon our Nation. This legislation includes provisions that realign resources to ensure better efficiency in the administration of customs laws within the United States Customs and Border Protection. It authorizes the International Trade Data System, a forward-looking program to better utilize technology in order to increase efficiency and facilitate trade. And, it provides for added resources to better meet all of our economic and trade security interests that are overseen by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

In sum, this legislation is the culmination of months of hard and thoughtful work. I thank my ranking member on the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, my colleagues on the Commerce Committee, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, and my colleagues on the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, with whom I have worked so closely to bring this legislation to the floor. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in advancing this essential legislation through the Senate in a timely manner.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to PFC William Edgerton Thorn who died honorably Thursday, August 24 at 8 a.m. in Baghdad at the age of 26. He was killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom after an improvised explosive devise detonated near his vehicle.

Given the opportunity to protect the people he loved and his strong belief in the cause, Willy, as he was known among family and friends, fought proudly. Similarly, Corey, his wife, is serving her country in Iraq. The couple was married on November 10, 2001 and enlisted in the Army in May of 2005. While they realized the dangers and hardships, they were willing to risk their lives for the freedom of others. My thoughts and prayers are with Corey Thorne at this difficult time, and I thank her for her service and tremendous sacrifice.

Willy loved making children laugh, and he and his wife hoped to save enough money to adopt a baby. His death is deeply mourned by his hometown, Rock Valley, and throughout the nation. Thus there is great truth in what Willy's mother-in-law, Deb Jasper, said ``A fallen soldier hits everyone because they have fallen for each and every one of us. What a sacrifice. What an honor.'' We, the American people, are forever indebted to Willy for his great strength and heroic sacrifice.

Staff Sergeant Jeffrey J. Hansen

Mr. President, it is my understanding that I have 15 minutes, and if I need 5 minutes off of the leader's time, I could have it. Would you please inform me when my 15 minutes are up, and if I need a little bit more time, without asking unanimous consent at that time, to take it off of leader time. Does the Chair understand what I am talking about?

I am going to support the trifecta bill. I want to speak about the bill and around the bill and about the environment that has taken place over the last week.

On a preliminary note, I would like to talk a little bit about the nickname of this bill. Its authors in the House and Senate came up with that nickname. They call it the ``trifecta'' bill.

Many folks know I'm a bit of a frugal person. You'd definitely hear it from my staff. Some might say I am cheap. I would say frugal. Frugal folks tend to be drudges and a bit predictable, but, at the end of the day, frugality tends to mean that you have your house to go home to and a little bit of savings in the bank.

You don't see a lot of frugal folks that take big speculative gambles.

So, when I saw this term ``Trifecta,'' not being much of a gambler, I didn't know what it meant. I asked my staff about it. They explained that it was a horse or dog racing term. It refers to a compound bet. That is, the bettor places a bet on three horses. The bettor indicates which horses will win, place, and show.

I asked my staff about the typical odds on a trifecta in a horse race. They picked the 2006 Kentucky Derby. According to the record, Barbaro was favored to win by 6 to 1 odds, Bluegrass Cat was 30 to 1 odds to win, and Steppenwolfer was 30 to 1 odds to win.

The $2 Trifecta paid $11,418 which is a pay-out of $5,709 per every dollar. Big pay-off. Long odds. So does our trifecta have those kind of odds? The answer is no, but it does require 60 Senators to payoff.

Being a frugal person and a cautious legislator, you can see how I might have problems with trifecta legislative strategy.

I guess I would look at this exercise as that kind of longshot. With Senate votes as horses, let's take a look. At the last race, on a motion to proceed to the House death tax repeal bill, 57 horses came in. So, the bet was to find 3 horses among the horses that ran the other direction and turn them around. As a farmer with some experience with horses, let me say, once they're out of the barn and running around, it's hard to turn them around. Senators can be similar, especially when a vote is highly political.

It looks to me like we may not turn around many of the horses today. I hope I am wrong. If I am right, the bottom line is that we bet on the wrong horses. Maybe we should've taken a bet that was more likely to pay-off.

Now, I want to turn to the substance of the bill before us. What's this trifecta bill all about? There are really three key pieces. The first piece is permanent death tax relief. The second piece deals with expiring tax provisions and some other items, known as the ``trailer bill.''

The last piece is a Federal minimum wage increase.

I am not going to describe the minimum wage piece. It is not in my committee, the Finance Committee's, jurisdiction. It was an add-on by the House. I really have no history with it and feel no reason to explain it, support it, criticize it, or defend it. I will leave that to others.

From a personal standpoint, I have supported minimum wage increases in the past. I'll continue to support them as long as the increase doesn't raise teen unemployment and doesn't hurt small business.

I am going to focus on the first two pieces of the trifecta. That is, the death tax relief and the trailer bill. Those matters are squarely within the Finance Committee's jurisdiction. I have some history with those issues. I care a great deal about the policy in both of those areas. As chairman, I feel a lot of responsibility for the tax policy in these areas.

Let's take a look at death tax relief first. I support repeal. I take it from the vote we had on the motion to proceed to the death tax repeal bill that a majority of the Senate also supports repeal or some sort of significant relief.

I want to make it clear to the people listening, who may not understand how the Senate works, why we need 60 votes. A vast majority of this Senate supports repeal of the death tax, but it won't happen because of the 60-vote requirement.

In this case, I did some checking around on the votes after the cloture motion failed. It became apparent to me, after conversations with members, staff, and interested parties that the bar for getting the 60 votes was pretty high. At first, the impression was kind of fuzzy, but it became clear as the weeks moved on. Several barriers existed for the Republican leadership and Senator Kyl. One, the fact that we were then so close to an election had politicized the issue. The Democratic leadership were becoming invested in blocking a Republican accomplishment. They made it clear to Democratic Senators who might otherwise be willing to work towards good policy that those Senators would face the wrath of the Democratic Caucus.

Moreover, the Democratic leadership exploited the policy positions that Senator Kyl and others considered priorities. Even though Republicans moved, the movement never seemed to be enough. Also, Democrats were focusing on points that they knew the Republican negotiators could not be flexible. It was a troublesome negotiation. Unfortunately, members and staff often heard what they wanted to hear. This pattern only got worse as time went on.

While these negotiations were going on, there was a parallel track developing. The Senate Republican leadership came up with a different plan. The plan was to add the death tax compromise to the pension conference. I counseled against it because I thought the mix of conferees would not be agreeable to it and it would be an awkward position to a broadly bipartisan

bill. Nevertheless, I agreed to consider this maneuver if the proponents could show me a path to 60 votes.

The proponents went against my counsel and did not deliver on the one thing I asked them to do: show me the votes. That plan didn't work because, as I predicted, a majority of the conferees were not supportive of it, and I was one of the conferees who would have supported it.

After 4 months of tough negotiations, none of the senior conferees, all of whom were invested in the pension policy, were keen to the idea either. And here, I am talking about both House and Senate conferees, Republicans and Democrats. The mission was launched and quickly aborted.

Along came plan B. Plan B was the result of my ``wily'' counterpart-- you know, the guy who, according to House colleagues and staff, supposedly ``snookers'' the Senate year in and year out in conferences. My House counterpart, who, like the rest of the conferees, was never on board with the pension plan, raised this plan B with me. Plan B was the idea of combining some new death tax compromise with the trailer bill.

I counseled against this plan. It was clear that pursuing this plan would cause problems with completing the pension conference. Chairman Enzi backed me in this view. Once again, I asked the proponents to show me the path to 60 votes. Once again, they didn't show the path, and then, as you know, they went ahead over my objection.

So we are where we are right now at almost 9 o'clock on Thursday. The process was lousy and offensive, but the substance is good. I will support the bill's death tax relief proposal. I wish this death tax policy would become law. If that does not happen, then we have to think about the next step. We have to keep our eye on the ball. We should be aiming for good death tax policy and for the 60 votes on how to get there.

We have all learned a few things in this painful process.

One, death tax is a unique kind of issue. It is not like other tax issues. It is a moral issue to folks on both sides of the aisle. To be politically palatable, the death tax proposal needs to be either in isolation or proportionate if combined with other tax proposals. Small so-called sweeteners don't get us over the goal line. Holding up popular must-do current law tax provisions also doesn't get us there. Just look at the vote counts in the House on the various bills. Those vote counts show what I am talking about.

So right now, we are stuck. The Democratic leadership is holding back Members from voting their consciences and their State interests. That resistance is there now, and it is very strong. It won't last past the political season. The Democratic caucus will be accountable. If the trifecta bill fails, we will be back, but we won't get anywhere until we are out of the political season. That is the ugly political fact I have to convey to Senators Kyl, Lincoln, and others who have worked in a bipartisan way to get this done.

I took a look in the Tax Code and the recent history of the death tax relief. In the past 20 years, comprehensive death tax relief occurred two times: in 1997, in a bipartisan tax relief bill, and in 2001 on another bipartisan tax relief bill. Both were produced by Finance Committee members with a bipartisan working group and the involvement of the chairman. My judgment is that if the trifecta bill fails, this is the way we are going to have to go again.

Now I turn to the other part of the trifecta, the so-called trailer bill. In this Congress, I have fought long and hard for extension of tax provisions that expired at the end of last year, now 8 months into the expired year. The extension provisions were included in the tax reconciliation bill which passed the Senate in the spring.

Let's consider how we got here on extenders and the trailer package.

Extenders were part of a package deal that I argued for in the Budget Committee. When the Budget Committee met in February and March of last year, I asked for $90 billion. The $90 billion was meant to cover expiring provisions, including capital gains and dividend rates and the hold harmless for the alternative minimum tax. Chairman Gregg agreed to a reconciliation instruction of $70 billion. In committee and on the floor, I defended the reconciliation instruction as part of this plan. Including extenders was a key part of the strategy. It came up a lot in debate. It was a factor in holding the instruction on the floor and in conference.

When the reconciliation bill was marked up in the Finance Committee, the extenders were part of the same package deal. The inclusion of 2 years of extenders on the floor helped us hold the Finance Committee bill together.

When we went to conference, the House brought a year of extenders, no AMT hold harmless, and 2 years of capital gains and dividends. Although we could not get 2 years of capital gains and dividends through this Senate the first time, I knew it was important to the Republican leadership, especially Senator Kyl, and I would even put myself in that category. We could not fit all the pieces together because, in part, the House would not take our anti-tax shelter measures and loophole closers. Something had to drop. That something was what we call the extenders.

Now, because the extenders were part of the plan and we were also into the expired year, I insisted on assurances from Chairman Thomas of the House Ways and Means Committee and also from the bicameral leadership. At that time, I released a statement stating that we would be putting the extenders in the pension conference report. This statement was based on assurances that I had from leaders in both the House and the Senate.

I asked for those assurances to do the right thing from a policy perspective and also a political perspective. From the policy perspective, the taxpayers should be able to rely on the tax legislative process. This should be especially true with respect to the current law expiring provisions that enjoy overwhelming bipartisan support. From a political perspective, I asked for those assurances to defend Republican Senators who would be attacked when the reconciliation conference agreement was announced. Indeed, those attacks did come, and I referred to the assurances in defending the Senators who were under attack.

In addition, several Republican Senators asked me to make sure there was a glidepath to those extenders. For instance, Senator Hutchison raised the State sales tax deductibility extender in a Senate Republican leadership meeting. Republican high-tech coalition members asked for similar assurances.

My interest has always been to accomplish what is possible, not taking chances with widely applicable tax relief measures on which millions of taxpayers are relying. For example, over 12 million Americans benefit from the State sales tax. We have charts up. I am not going to take time to refer to them much, so I hope the audience will look and study them. Over 12 million Americans benefit from the State sales tax deduction. Over 3 million teachers benefit from tax deductions for education expenses. Teachers have prepared for the upcoming school year, and they don't know whether supplies they buy out of their own pocket will be deductible. Over 3.5 million families benefit from the college tuition deduction.

I thank the Chair. I will use a little bit of time off the leader's time.

A week ago, I said some colleagues want to engage in a riverboat gamble involving these popular tax relief provisions by including it with the death tax. They call Chairman Thomas's bill the trifecta bill. I will treat the proponents with more respect than they have treated this chairman and the institution of the Finance Committee. I will support this bill.

The burden is on the proponents of this gambit to produce. But to do that, they are going to have to deal with the realities of the votes in the Senate. People want and should expect that Congress will provide certainty in estate planning. My colleagues have placed all the chips on the table. It is on them to make sure it is a winning hand. If the trifecta bill fails, they need to answer to those millions of Americans who relied on our promise and good will as legislators.

I also have a message for the Democratic leadership. While I am frustrated with my leadership, let me say

that it should also be clear that the Democratic leadership has been more eager to produce press releases than results. The Democratic leadership has been actively and aggressively undermining efforts to reach a deal. This has only served to deny relief from the death tax for America's small business and family farmers. This obstruction has also forced these farmers and small business owners to have to live with continued uncertainty of the current death tax structure. That is not right. The people's business should be done.

The time has come for the Democratic leadership to stop playing politics with family farmers and small business folks and let responsible Democrats work on a fair compromise. It is wrong that the Democratic leadership is preventing Senators from voting their consciences in this manner. Senators should be allowed to put the interests of their constituents first instead of the priorities of the Democratic leadership.

When you cut through all the finger-pointing and the press releases, both sides are to blame that we can't get these extenders done. Both death tax and expiring provisions should be processed in a bipartisan, constructive way. We should be realistic and seek to accomplish the possible. Let's do the people's business.

Mr. President, I will support the bill before us, but should it fail, I will use my best efforts to do what needs to be done. I will stick by my word to the American people and ask those who give their word to keep it with me. Either result would be right for the people. To do neither and not act on extenders would be the wrong thing for the people. That is why we are here to serve the people. We are here to govern.

Mr. President, I am happy to engage my distinguished colleague about what the intent with this exemption is, and how we have worked to limit the unintended consequences for legitimate charitable organizations. As you are aware, some of us with interest in this provision in working to address any unintended consequences thought it would be a good idea to give the Secretary the ability to exempt from the excess business holdings rules Type III supporting organizations in certain limited circumstances.

Mr. President, I agree with Senator Allard on his understanding and our intent that the Secretary should make a final determination very quickly after a currently existing Type III supporting organization seeks exemption from the excess business holdings rules. The determination should be made by the Secretary within 6 months after the exemption is sought. The joint committee will have a description of several factors that the Secretary should consider in making decisions to waive. The considered views of the State Attorney General should be a part of that decision. In addition, if the shares of the entity and related persons is not controlling or the individual and related persons are bound to ultimately contribute all but a de minimus share to the charity and have no direct or indirect control of that charity and its investments those are additional factors the Secretary can consider.

Mr. President, yes, the provision is intended to get at fair share type payments, but note that agencies and creditors cannot get around the provision merely by re-labeling fair share payments as something else. This is the intent of this provision. I am also aware of a specific issue affecting a few States and their existing State law, and the provision before us today specifically includes a transition period in part to allow the reconciliation of various State statutes with the new federal provision. I will work with interested Senators during this period on their concerns regarding existing organizations. I thank Mr. Coleman and Mr. Sessions for helping to clarify its intent.

Modifications to Sections 801 and 803

Mr. President, I appreciate my distinguished colleague from Virginia, Senator Allen, raising this concern. I can assure him that he is correct that it makes perfect sense for provisions intended to encourage employers to fund their defined benefit pension plans by increasing the deduction limits to have the same effective date. I also agree that this should especially be true for provisions that update deduction limits for employers with a combination of plans. I look forward to working with my colleague on addressing this oversight.

I am happy to confirm the understanding of my distinguished colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, regarding this provision. The provision is intended to buttress current exemption standards by providing additional standards that must be met for a credit counseling organization to claim exempt status. As the Senator knows, the IRS recently has challenged the exempt status of several credit counseling organizations because they are operated for a substantial non-exempt purpose, substantial private benefit and private inurement. Certain of these organizations exist merely to generate income from the sale of debt management plans, while providing minimal exempt purpose activities related to credit counseling. The standards imposed under this provision are intended to augment, not supplant, the IRS efforts and to ensure that exemption from consumer protection laws applies only to those organizations that can satisfy stricter tax- exempt standards. I also want to assure the distinguished Senator from New Mexico that we will continue to monitor developments in this industry to ensure that only those entities that serve a sufficient charitable and educational purpose can claim tax-exempt status and that such tax-exempt entities do not generate significant revenues from activities unrelated to their exempt purposes. If it turns out that the additional standards imposed by this legislation do not have the desired impact, you can be assured that we will not hesitate to revisit this area.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Pension 7 Protection Act of 2006.

Every Member of the U.S. Senate should be proud to support this bill.

This is a bill that is about one thing--improving the retirement security of all Americans.

It been a long road to get here.

There were times, I will tell you, when I wondered if we would ever get here.

But the fact that we are here today shows that when people stick to a goal and work together, you can get great things done for the American people.

I want to commend Chairman Enzi for his outstanding leadership and his perseverance in leading us here today.

I can tell you that it wasn't an easy job.

I am also very pleased to commend the great work of my colleague and good friend, Senator Baucus, who was my partner in the Finance Committee and all the way through conference on this legislation.

We worked together and our staffs worked together.

I wish he could be here with me today to see final passage of this legislation, but as we all know, he is attending to family matters that are far more important than anything we could be doing here in the U.S. Senate.

I also want to thank Senator Kennedy, who worked tirelessly on this bill and was critical to the bipartisan bill before us.

Why is this a good bill?

I could spend all night talking about all of the positive reforms in this bill, but don't worry--I am not going to do that at 10 o'clock here tonight.

But I do want to highlight a few parts of this legislation that will make Americans more secure in their retirement.

First and foremost, this bill will ensure that American workers can depend on their pensions. They will know that their pension will actually be there for them when they retire.

This bill will also protect the PBGC from absorbing billions of dollars in pension liabilities from bankrupt airlines and give those airlines' employees an opportunity to receive the full pension they've been promised.

This bill will protect workers from the next Enron by prohibiting employers from stuffing company stock in their 401(k) plans.

This bill will make permanent the bipartisan retirement savings provisions from the 2001 tax relief bill--increased 401(k) and IRA limits, a permanent low-income Savers' Credit, greater portability of retirement assets, and a wide array of other pro-savings initiatives.

These provisions are vital to building a ``savers' society,'' and I am proud that these provisions originated in the Senate Finance Committee and were included in the 2001 tax bill at the insistence of myself and Senator Baucus.

This bill will also encourage greater participation in retirement plans by promoting automatic enrollment arrangements.

These are just a few of the key reforms in this bill. This is legislation that every Member of the Senate can truly be proud to support.

I look forward to seeing the President sign it into law.

I would like to incorporate by reference a technical explanation being prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation that describes the legislative intent with respect to H.R. 4, the Pension Protection Act of 2006. This document expresses our understanding of the provisions in the bill, and it will be a useful reference in understanding the legislation. Chairman Thomas also made a statement on the floor of the House of Representatives last Friday that he had requested this technical explanation. The technical explanation will be published by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation as document number JCX-38-06, Technical Explanation of H.R. 4, The Pension Protection Act of 2006, as passed by the House on July 28, 2006, and as considered by the Senate on August 3, 2006.

Mr. President, after great effort by many people, the Senate has voted to agree to H.R. 4, the Pension Protection Act of 2006.

Credit must go to the dedicated members of my staff, who spent many hours over many months working on the issues that ultimately led to this bill. Kolan Davis, Mark Prater, John

O'Neill, Dean Zerbe, Elizabeth Paris, Chris Javens, Cathy Barre, Anne Freeman, Elizabeth Goff, and Nick Wyatt showed great dedication to the tasks before them.

As is usually the case, the cooperation of Senator Baucus and his staff was extremely valuable. I particularly want to thank Russ Sullivan, Patrick Heck, Bill Dauster, Judy Miller, Stuart Sirkin, Jon Selib, Melissa Mueller, Rebecca Baxter and Ryan Abraham.

I want to show my appreciation towards HELP Committee Chairman Enzi's staff, including Katherine McGuire, Greg Dean, Diann Howland and David Thompson. I want to thank Portia Wu and Holly Fechner along with the rest of HELP Committee Ranking Member Kennedy's staff. I also want to thank the staff of Finance Committee member conferees on the pension bill. They include Evan Liddiard, Brendan Dunn, Manny Rossman, Wes Coulam, Jennifer Perkins, Jen Vesey, Amy Barber, Steve Bailey, and James Dennis.

I also want to mention Thomas Barthold, the acting chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation and his staff. The efforts of Carolyn Smith, Patricia McDermott, and Nicole Flax were invaluable. Roger Colinvaux, Gordon Clay, and Ron Schultz provided great assistance with the charitable provisions that are in the bill. I also want to thank Theresa Pattara, who worked on my staff as a legislative fellow, for her work on the charitable provisions.

Finally, I want to show my appreciation to the staff of Senate Legislative Counsel, including Jim Fransen, Mark Mathiesen, Stacey Kern, and Mark McGunagle.

Mr. President, after great effort by many people, the Senate has voted to agree to H.R. 4, the Pension Protection Act of 2006.

Credit must go to the dedicated members of my staff, who spent many hours over many months working on the issues that ultimately led to this bill. Kolan Davis, Mark Prater, John O'Neill, Dean Zerbe, Elizabeth Paris, Chris Javens, Cathy Barre, Anne Freeman, Elizabeth Goff, and Nick Wyatt showed great dedication to the tasks before them.

As is usually the case, the cooperation of Senator Baucus and his staff was extremely valuable. I particularly want to thank Russ Sullivan, Patrick Heck, Bill Dauster, Judy Miller, Stuart Sirkin, Jon Selib, Melissa Mueller, Rebecca Baxter and Ryan Abraham.

I want to show my appreciation towards HELP Committee Chairman Enzi's staff, including Katherine McGuire, Greg Dean, Diann Howland and David Thompson. I want to thank Portia Wu and Holly Fechner along with the rest of HELP Committee Ranking Member Kennedy's staff. I also want to thank the staff of Finance Committee Member conferees on the pension bill. They include Evan Liddiard, Brendan Dunn, Manny Rossman, Wes Coulam, Jennifer Perkins, Jen Vesey, Amy Barber, Steve Bailey, and James Dennis.

I also want to mention Thomas Barthold, the acting Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation and his staff. The efforts of Carolyn Smith, Patricia McDermott, and Nicole Flax were invaluable. Roger Colinvaux [CallIn-Vo], Gordon Clay, and Ron Schultz provided great assistance with the charitable provisions that are in the bill. I also want to thank Theresa Pattara, who worked on my staff as a legislative fellow, for her work on the charitable provisions.

Finally, I want to show my appreciation to the staff of Senate Legislative Counsel, including Jim Fransen, Mark Mathiesen, Stacey Kern, and Mark McGunagle.

I yield the floor.