Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to honor one of our country's bravest, SPC Gregory L. Tull of Pocohontas, IA. Specialist Tull sadly died November 25, 2005, after an improvised explosive device detonated near his Humvee in Al Anbar province in Iraq. Specialist Tull served with the Iowa Army National Guard's 1st Battalion, 194th Field Artillery based in Storm Lake, IA. He was only 20 years old.

I ask that all Americans join me in remembering and honoring Specialist Tull. He was an upstanding and courageous soldier who fell far before his time. Our country has survived these many years due to the brave men and women who have served in our Armed Forces, and it greatly saddens me to announce that another young man has made the ultimate sacrifice for our country and for the freedom of Iraq.

LTC Gregory Hapgood of the Iowa Army National Guard remembered that Specialist Tull was ``a good guy that didn't shrink from responsibility,'' and was someone who ``wanted in on the action.'' During this crucial time in America's history, we should all remember Greg Tull's courage and dedication to his country.

We should also stand with Specialist Tull's parents, Eileen and Gary, and his brother, Bryan, and all his family in their time of grief. Our thoughts and prayers also go out to Gregory's friends, classmates, and all others who were lucky enough to know him. Greg Tull did not die in vain, but rather gave his life defending America and promoting freedom around the world. He will be sorely missed but also fondly remembered.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 13, 2005, at 10:15 a.m., in executive session, to consider the nomination of J. Dorrance Smith to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, December 13, 2005, at 10:30 a.m., on the nominations of Deborah Taylor Tate and Michael Joseph Copps to be Federal Communications Commissioners.

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request, which I would like to make for Senator Baucus, that the following fellows and interns be granted floor privileges during the duration of the debate on this measure, Jonathan Coleman, Andreas Datsopoulos, and Holly Luck.

Mr. President, today I address the Senate in tribute to PFC Dustin Yancey, originally from Cedar Rapids, IA and more recently from Goose Creek, SC. Private First Class Yancey was tragically killed on November 7, 2005 during Operation Iraqi Freedom. His Humvee was struck by an improvised explosive device and both Private First Class Dustin Yancey and Captain James M. Gurbisz were killed. Private First Class Yancey served with the 26th Forward Support Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division based in Fort Stewart, GA. He was only 22 years old.

I ask that the Senate, the people of Iowa, and all Americans stand today and recognize the sacrifice that Private First Class Yancey made yearlier this month. Our country has survived throughout the centuries due to the brave men and women who have composed our Armed Forces, and I am saddened to announce to the Senate that another of our bravest will be buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

We could all learn from the patriotism and spirit of Private First Class Yancey. His cousin, Brian Yancey of Cedar Rapids, IA, remembered that Private First Class Yancey ``was very much a patriot, very much a military man. He was a person who wanted to do what he could for his country.''

We must remember Private First Class Yancey's family, in both Georgia and Iowa, and stand with them during this time of loss and grief. The thoughts and prayers of countless Americans go out to Private First Class Yancey's family and friends. He did not die in vain, but rather gave his life for the promotion of freedom and security around the world. He will be sorely missed, but will also be an inspiration for future brave Americans for years to come.

Mr. President, I rise today to mark the loss of one of my staff members and to make a statement for The Congressional Record about the good work of this individual for the people of Iowa. Earl Lee Monholland died at home on October 31, 2005, due to heart illness, at the age of 37. Earl worked on my staff for 12 years as a constituent services specialist in Davenport, Cedar Rapids, and Washington, DC. He was a dedicated public servant who thoroughly enjoyed helping Iowans. He was committed to providing assistance in a responsive and timely manner and to making sure that whatever could be done got done behalf of a constituent having problems with the Federal bureaucracy. Earl also was an outstanding colleague to his fellow staff members, going out of his way to make things work for the entire team, especially with the computer systems. I greatly appreciate the fine work that Earl did during the last 12 years and the unassuming way he

got the job done. There is no doubt that Earl Monholland will be missed by his friends and colleagues on the Grassley staff.

Mr. President, no one is more committed to the Community Services Block Grant than I am. The Community Services Block Grant program helps to strengthen communities through services for poor individuals and families, assisting these low-income individuals to become self-sufficient.

CSBG provides critical services to poor families throughout the country. Services offered by CSBG entities can help support these important social services programs such as: Head Start, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Programs, LIHEAP, weatherization, literacy and job training programs, child health care, after-school programs, housing and homeownership services, financial literacy and asset development, and food pantries and meal programs. In FY 2002, the 1,100 community action network served more than 13 million individuals in more than 4 million families nationwide.

Over the past few months, I have received dozens of letters from Community Action Agencies from across the country, thanking me for my efforts on behalf on the Community Services Block Grant. I, along with Senator Chris Dodd, spearheaded a letter, signed by 56 of our colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, urging Senate conferees to the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill to uphold the Senate funding level of $637 million. I understand that the conference report on the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill includes $637 million for CSBG.

I hope that the conference report on the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill will be enacted soon and that these vital resources will be directed to important services for low income individuals.

However, I cannot support the Harkin amendment because if that amendment passed, it would result in an interruption of funding not only for CSBG, but for all the social spending programs that low income individuals depend upon. That is not a responsible course of action.

We should not make support for CSBG a partisan issue--we should work together to enact the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations Conference Report so that money can be appropriately directed to fund these important services.

Madam President, I thought Senator Kyl wanted some time. What I would like to do, if it is OK with the other side, is give Senator Kyl some time off of our time and then right after him, Senator Thomas, because Senator Thomas has been waiting for a long time to speak. I ask unanimous consent to make that the speaking order. These folks are talking about maybe 20 minutes apiece or less.

Yes, we would be willing to do that. We are looking at some votes around noon. Yours would be one of those. We don't have unanimous consent on that.

I yield 10 minutes to Senator Kyl.

Mr. President, I yield whatever time he might consume of my remaining time to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. President, are we now ready to dispose of the Conrad amendment?

Mr. President, I raise a point of order the amendment is not germane to the underlying legislation.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume. This is for the purpose of addressing two amendments before the Senate. I wish to make a short comment on the amendment that was just proposed by Senator Cantwell.

In regard to this amendment, what she terms the anti-gouging amendment, obviously I can't help but say the intent of the amendment might be good, but this is a tax relief bill that is before us. It is not a crime bill before the Senate right now.

We just received a copy of the amendment. There are all kinds of policy questions that need to be considered. So because of this and the fact that it is not germane to the bill, I will be raising a point of order at the appropriate time.

Amendment No. 2610

I also wish to make a comment on the amendment proposed about a half hour ago by Senator Feinstein. Before I go into the problems behind the Feinstein amendment, let me say that it is unfortunate that our Nation has had to respond to so many unexpected crises over the past 4 years. Most recently, we have had to provide an enormous amount of hurricane relief to families in many of our Southern States. Despite this fact, our economy is growing and continues to grow and, even considering the hurricanes, growing at a rate that nobody would have anticipated considering a possible ripple effect that presumably is not rippling as much as we thought through the economy because of that natural disaster.

As far as Federal receipts are concerned, these are up $275 billion over the prior year, and Federal revenues are returning to their average level of GDP. That average level, if you want a little leeway, is somewhere between 17 percent of GDP and 19 percent of GDP, and that is not just recently, that would be a 50-year average where all Federal taxes coming into the Federal Treasury have fallen within that band. Also, it has been our policy, at least in this administration, to do tax policy that falls within that band of 17 to 19 percent of gross domestic product.

I would like to take a look at the tax increase that Senator Feinstein put on the table. It would increase the top rate by almost 5 percent for ordinary income.

The premise of Senator Feinstein's position seems to be that taxpayers in the top brackets are solely Park Avenue millionaires, that somehow these people are sitting around clipping coupons and drawing all the income from them. The facts show differently, so I would like to go to the facts that are put out by the nonpartisan people in the Treasury Department.

About 80 percent of the benefits of the top ordinary income tax rate go to taxpayers with small business ownership. Those of us from the heartland know that the definition of small business is not determined by some gross revenue taxable income that is used as a basis and the arguments for this amendment. It depends upon whether the business is locally based. It depends on where the business finances its growth from its earnings.

The people who own these businesses are drawn from the community. They go to the local church. They support the local little leagues. Small business, as I see it, and as I know it coming from a Midwestern State, is a very stabilizing yet very dynamic social and economic force in their respective communities and tends to be the bulwark of the strength of the American middle class.

Small business income is generally taxed at an individual rate. In most cases, owners of small businesses put the income of the small business on his or her tax return. As a practical matter, then, the individual tax rate is the rate that is paid by these small businesses as opposed to the corporate rate.

The corporate tax rate, with some exceptions, in the case of some older, smaller corporations, generally applies to big business. The relationship between the top individual rate and the top corporate rate then has a bearing on our policy toward small business and whether or not we are going to give small business the incentives to grow and create jobs because these people create 70 percent of the new jobs in America.

If the top individual marginal tax rate is higher than the top corporate marginal rate tends to be--it is very obvious that you can quantify it--then we are sending a bad signal to small business.

Before 2001, the top marginal rate for small business was 39.6 percent, the rate that Senator Feinstein's amendment would return us to. The top corporate rate is 35 percent. When you look at the difference, that is about a 15-percent difference between the top rate for big corporations and the rate that is used for a small business that is not incorporated.

So small business was paying then, before we made these changes in 2001, about 15 percent more. It is what I call a 15-percent small business tax penalty. When you tax labor, when you tax business--the old principle, you tax more and you get less of it, that was the law at that time.

We recognized the detrimental impact that was having on the economy. So we looked at the Federal tax policy bias against small business, and then we had a bipartisan majority in this Senate, including Senator Baucus, the ranking Democrat, and one-fourth of the Democratic caucus at that particular time voted to gradually--because we couldn't do it all at once--gradually equalize the top marginal rate between big corporate business and small unincorporated business, small unincorporated business paying the individual rate that was 15 percent higher, a 15-percent small business tax penalty, something that common sense ought to dictate is totally unfair.

Since 2003, for the first time in many years, the top rate, 35 percent, has been the same for Fortune 500 companies incorporated, obviously, as for successful small businesses that file the individual return.

Senator Feinstein's amendment would take the first step to restore and perhaps even enhance the 15-percent penalty on small business.

With all the appetite for taxing and spending around here, rest assured, small business will be facing even higher taxes.

Small business creates 70 to 80 percent of the jobs in this country. Why, then, at this time would any Member of this body want to raise taxes on people for their ingenuity and their willingness to take a gamble in creating a small business? Why would they want to do that to people who create 80 percent of the new jobs in America?

So, without a doubt, anyone voting for Senator Feinstein's amendment is, in effect, saying they support raising taxes on these small business people who create 70 to 80 percent of the new jobs in America.

That does not pass the commonsense test. In 2003, it is worth noting that the business community told us reducing the top rate of taxation was their tax policy priority. The small business community told us, when we were writing this legislation, that doing away with this 15- percent penalty, the small business tax penalty, was their top priority.

Now let's think about this. There seems to be a link between tax relief, economic growth, and jobs. Taxes make a difference. They make a difference whether we are going to have economic growth. Without economic growth, there is no increase in jobs. We have seen evidence of that linkage since 2003. Economic statistics prove that when tax relief kicked in, the economy has grown and more jobs have been created. That is the dynamic of the American free market economic system.

Public policy made by Congress makes a difference, and reducing taxes on small business, or at least making sure there is not a penalty against small business vis-a-vis major corporations, have a great deal to do with whether the free market system works. So that tax policy has helped the enhancement of our economy.

We are in the process of thinking about reversing that course. Whether it is intended or not, that is the impact of Senator Feinstein's amendment. Some would speculate that for the minority party--and that is the Democratic Party--it is good politics for the economy to go into the tank; raise taxes as the economy is coming back and economic growth will be stifled. If economic growth is stifled, then jobs will disappear. If jobs disappear, then voters are more apt to throw out members of the President's party, members of the Republican Party.

I am not that cynical. I do not believe some of the opposition would want to put short-term political advantages over the economic well- being of their constituents, but obviously that is the impact of this amendment. So it does make one wonder what everything is about as we deal with these issues.

To sum up, a vote for the amendment by the Senator from California is a vote that will increase taxes. It is a tax increase that comes during economic recovery. I remind people of a quote from somebody who people listen to more than anybody else on how the economy is going and they respect what he says, Chairman Greenspan. He says that the reason we have had these 2\1/2\ to 3 years of economic recovery is because of the tax policies that have been put in place in the recent couple of tax bills.

So we do not want a tax increase when we have a recovery. It is a tax increase on the folks that create jobs in America, and that is our hard-working small business owners. For those reasons, I ask that we reject the Feinstein amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield such time as he might consume to the Senator from South Dakota.

On the bill.

I yield off the bill such time as the Senator from South Dakota might consume.

Iraq And Prewar Intelligence

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent agreement that I think has been accepted. I ask unanimous consent that at 3:30 today the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the following amendments in the order sequenced below; further, that they not be subject to second-degree amendments prior to the votes and that there be 2 minutes equally divided between the votes: Dorgan No. 2587; Feinstein No. 2609; Feinstein No. 2610; Cantwell No. 2612; provided further that at 3 today, there be 30 minutes equally divided for debate between the chairman and Senator Dorgan; provided further that following those votes, Senator Coburn be recognized in order to offer his amendment; further, that all votes after the first be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I yield myself such time as I might consume off of our side of the Kennedy amendment.

I am pleased to be able to report to Senator Kennedy that we do not need a board to tell us how to end poverty.

I quote Washington Post columnist William Raspberry, writing in a recent op-ed piece:

Fatherless families are America's single largest source of

poverty. The Annie E. Casey Foundation, ``Kids Count,'' once

reported that Americans who failed to complete high school,

to get married and to reach age 20 before having their first

child were nearly 10 times as likely to live in poverty as

those who did these three things.

The Brookings Institution, obviously a liberal think tank, published an analysis of a variety of factors that could

reduce poverty. The authors from Brookings concluded that the combination of education, full-time work, and marriage could reduce poverty rates from 13 percent to 17 percent.

The bipartisan welfare reform bill reported out of the Senate Committee on Finance would make substantial progress in helping families make progress in areas that we know would reduce poverty. We could not get an agreement with the other side to get this legislation discussed on the floor. We got it out of the committee in a bipartisan way. It deals with the issues of education, work, and marriage.

Following upon the views of the Brookings Institute and the views of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, rather than engage in politically motivated efforts, we should work together to implement these serious policies of education, of work, and of marriage. Together, by implementing these policies, and we know these policies work, we will take one giant step toward reducing poverty.

I don't think Senator Kennedy's amendment is necessary. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume off the bill.

Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation I have had with Senator Baucus in working out some differences on this bill, which he has enunciated very well. I look forward to, hopefully, getting done what he said before we get this bill through the Senate tomorrow.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business, and the time will be off of the bill.

Mr. President, today is the anniversary of the hearing on the worldwide withdrawal of Vioxx, the blockbuster drug that became a

blockbuster disaster. As chairman of the Committee on Finance, I called for this hearing a year ago. The Vioxx hearing turned the spotlight on a troubled agency in denial. The type of problems exposed during the hearings have proven to be not isolated but systemic.

Over the past year, my committee staff has investigated allegations coming from within and outside the Food and Drug Administration. Brave whistleblowers, such as Drs. Andrew Mosholder, David Graham, and others, have come forward to expose the too cozy relationship between the agency and the drug industry. I can tell you today that problems exist not only within the Center for Drugs but extend to the centers for devices, biologics, and even into veterinary medicine.

I am concerned--and every other Member of this Senate should also be concerned--about this agency's cozy relationship with industry. To further illustrate this problem, I am sending today a letter to another drug company that appears too cozy with the Food and Drug Administration. Last year, 2 days after the Vioxx hearing, the drug company Wyeth met with former Commissioner Crawford. Why did Wyeth's CEO want to talk with the commissioner? Because Wyeth recently had to remove one of its most profitable veterinary drugs from the market.

So what did Wyeth do? They launched an investigation of a Food and Drug Administration employee, Dr. Victoria Hampshire. It was Dr. Hampshire who concluded that Wyeth's drug was killing hundreds of dogs. I have in my hand what Wyeth presented to former Commissioner Crawford. Every page of this document has on it things that are referred to as confidential. It is a 29-page PowerPoint with 10 pages of backup material. It is dated November 19, 2004. Besides being marked confidential, it says:

ProHeart 6 Apparent Conflict of Interest.

In summary this PowerPoint alleges that Dr. Hampshire had a personal and financial conflict of interest. Dr. Hampshire approached my committee staff because she was scared and felt unfairly targeted by the Wyeth Company and also by her agency. Why? Because she was simply doing her job to check to see if drugs were as effective and safe as they were said to be.

Last week, the Food and Drug Administration briefed my committee investigators on this matter. It turns out that Wyeth succeeded in having Dr. Hampshire removed from reviewing its drugs. Dr. Hampshire's hard work and dedication to science and drug safety placed a bull's eye on her back and destroyed her reputation and career--I should say temporarily destroyed her reputation. When you hear the end of this, she got commendation. Without her knowledge, the Food and Drug Administration also launched a criminal investigation against her.

This sordid story is still unraveling. I can say that no action was taken against Dr. Hampshire, and after the investigation closed, the Food and Drug Administration rewarded Dr. Hampshire for her work on the Wyeth drug, which remains off the market. Unfortunately for Dr. Hampshire, Wyeth's efforts to discredit her did not end when the FDA cleared her. At least one Wyeth sales representative attempted to discredit Dr. Hampshire in the veterinary community. Fortunately for Dr. Hampshire, the salesperson's comments about Wyeth's investigation of her and her alleged conflicts of interest were made to a former colleague of Dr. Hampshire. My letter to Wyeth today seeks information and documents related to Wyeth's investigation of Dr. Hampshire and the salesperson's comments.

So a year later, we are still uncovering the cozy relationship between the agency and the drug industry.

In this case, a company had the guts to go to supposedly an unbiased regulating agency and tried to get somebody fired, removed, and even a criminal investigation against them, do everything to discredit them. That sort of culture and environment should not exist in any regulatory agency with the economic sectors that they are regulating.

Dr. Hampshire's sad story is further proof that the Food and Drug Administration needs a permanent commissioner who can restore order and respect for independence. The Food and Drug Administration cannot serve the American people and the interests of the drug industry at the same time.

A year ago, Dr. Graham created a firestorm when he said at the Vioxx hearing:

I can tell you right now, there are at least five drugs on

the market today that I think need to be looked at quite

seriously to see whether or not they belong there. . . .

Dr. Graham identified those five drugs: Accutane, Bextra, Crestor, Meridia, and Serevent, when asked by my distinguished colleague, Senator Bingaman of New Mexico. Some roundly criticized Dr. Graham's testimony as inflammatory a year ago. Today it is noteworthy that the agency has taken regulatory action or action is pending on four out of the five drugs named by Dr. Graham.

Less than a week after the hearing, the Food and Drug Administration announced it was strengthening its plan to reduce the risk of birth defects associated with Accutane. Then in August the agency issued a public health advisory to help make sure females do not become pregnant while taking this medicine and to release more information about depression and suicidal thoughts associated with that drug. A month after the hearing, December of last year, the Food and Drug Administration issued a public health advisory for Bextra. The agency announced it changed Bextra's label to provide consumers with upgraded warnings about possible heart and blood clotting problems. Ultimately, the agency asked Pfizer to voluntarily remove Bextra from the market in April of this year.

Less than 4 months after Dr. Graham's testimony, Crestor was subject to a public health advisory as part of the agency's effort to notify the public of potentially significant emerging safety data. Crestor's label was changed to highlight important information on the safe use of Crestor. Eight months after the hearing, the Food and Drug Administration convened an advisory committee meeting related to the safety of Serevent and other asthma drugs. The advisory committee recommended strengthening the labels for Serevent as well, but the agency has yet to act. Only one drug, Meridia, has not been the subject of any action by FDA.

American consumers are the beneficiaries of these actions. I don't know if the agency would have acted without Dr. Graham's testimony before my committee a year ago. But I know from experience that sunlight is the best disinfectant. The scrutiny of the last 12 months is just the kind of medicine that the Food and Drug Administration needs. Things have not turned around overnight. Reforming this agency is a long-haul task.

For those of us in Congress committed to oversight, reform, and improvement, the Vioxx investigation and hearings, as well as other investigations, prompted me to cosponsor two Food and Drug Administration reform bills this year. Senator Dodd of Connecticut and I introduced a bipartisan bill, the Fair Access to Clinical Trials Act, in February and the Food and Drug Administration Safety Act of 2005 in April of this year. These bills represent part of a sustained effort to restore public confidence in the Federal Government's food and drug safety agency. A number of you have cosponsored these bills with Senator Dodd and me. I urge everyone else who hasn't to consider them again.

Enactment of these bills will be a meaningful step towards greater accountability and transparency for the Food and Drug Administration. And if enacted, they would provide the agency with some much needed authority to ensure the safety and efficacy of drugs.

One big opportunity that absolutely cannot be missed right now is the appointment of a new full-time commissioner who is committed to reform. This leader must recognize the problems of a culture that has become too cozy with the industry.

Then that leader must be tough enough to make necessary changes happen.

The FDA has to do a top-notch job on ensuring the safety of the products it regulates.

And where the FDA lacks the tools and resources to do so, Congress has to step in and help.

You mean we have used up all the time on our bill? I took time off of my bill.

Then I will forget my last three sentences.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the Dorgan amendment is not germane to the underlying legislation.

Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the Feinstein amendment is not germane to the underlying bill.

I am against the Feinstein amendment. It is a typical Democratic response to a budget: Raise taxes. They happen to think that Americans are crying, ``We are

undertaxed.'' I don't hear that from my constituents. I bet they don't hear it in California either.

If those taxpayers she is talking about were only coupon-clipping, Park Avenue millionaires or somebody from Rodeo Drive, a resident of Beverly Hills, I would not be concerned. But we are talking about taxing small business people 80 percent by the Treasury Department. The people that fall into this category whom she wants to tax are the small business people that create 70 to 80 percent of the jobs in America. There is no reason, when we finally have the individual tax rate at 35, the same as the corporate tax rate, to treat small business the same as we treat corporations--not have a bias in the tax bill. We shouldn't go back to that bias.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the Feinstein amendment is not germane to the underlying bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk that has been cleared by both sides.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this is an amendment sponsored by Senator Baucus and me. It remedies two matters in the bill. The most important one makes the amendment hold harmless, a pure hold-harmless amendment. The amendment also clarifies that Government contractors will receive the research and development credit. This amendment is fully offset.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Senator Sununu wants a couple minutes.

I call up the Grassley amendment.

Mr. President, this is an alternative to the Durbin sense-of-the-Senate resolution. The Durbin amendment in essence says certain taxes should be extended and that money ought to be used to provide health care and insurance for children.

We agree that more needs to be done to help uninsured people. But we believe that the pretax policy in place is such a good tax policy--for instance, Chairman Greenspan saying that the tax policy has been good for the recovery and the extended growth, bringing in $274 billion this year over last year. We think we need to do all the things--expanding the economy and everything else--because it is through an expanding economy that middle-income people advance themselves; that we have an opportunity then for more people through more income to be able to buy health insurance. We have to do all those things. We can't change tax policy and count that as doing it.

I urge this as an alternative to Senator Durbin's amendment.

Mr. President, I move to waive the budget point of order and ask for the yeas and nays.

I am going to give the Senator from Illinois an opportunity to come down out of the grandstand and play on the same playing field I do, and the Senator will have an opportunity to take care of all those people.

The Senator had an opportunity 2 weeks ago on the Deficit Reduction Act. All the things we had in there for the people who do not have health care the Senator had an opportunity to vote for and didn't.

Just to name a few of these: We had the Family Opportunity Act that would have helped 500,000 severely disabled children. The Senator voted against that. We had a vote against a bill in regard to the children's health insurance shortfall. The Senator voted against that. The Senator voted against an outreach and enrollment to get eligible children health care coverage for which they are entitled. If the Senator were serious about helping low-income people, the Senator would have voted for that because we took care of a lot of the children the Senator is talking about.

I raise a point of order that the amendment is not germane to the underlying bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.

Mr. President, there is substantial research that shows the way to make progress in eliminating poverty is to encourage healthy marriages, responsible fathership, full-time work, and education.

The poverty rate for married couple families is 5.5 percent. The overall poverty rate is 12.7 percent. The poverty rate for single- family households, if there is no husband, is 28 percent.

So it is quite obvious, poverty reduction should not be a partisan issue. We know what we need to do to reduce poverty. So we need to roll up our sleeves, work together, strengthen marriage, strengthen fatherhood, promote education, and get people full-time work. That is the way to end poverty. Statistics prove it.

I make the point that the pending amendment is not germane to the measure now before the Senate, and I raise a point of order against it under section 305 of the Budget Act.

Mr. President, before we have the next rollcall on the Reed amendment, I have been asked by many Members if we could do what worked so successfully for Senator Specter on his bill by enforcing the 10-minute rule. The leader has asked me to say that is what we are going to do. So we will have regular order after the 10-minute rollcall vote, so people should stay around close to make sure they get their vote recorded.

We are going to enforce the Specter rule. If you don't like it, blame Specter.

I support the LIHEAP program. Most everybody in this body supports the LIHEAP program. I have had an opportunity to vote for that even in recent days. But we have to make sure we do it in the right way. I have even tried to get oil companies to contribute to the low-income fuel fund. But here we have the Senator resurrecting the old nonworkable windfall profits tax. As Senator Domenici said in previous debate, this is one way of raising the price of gasoline and other fuels.

I ask you to oppose this amendment, and I would raise the point that the amendment is not germane.

Mr. President, I have a list of amendments on which I wish to propound a unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the Sununu amendment, that Senator Lincoln be recognized to offer an amendment and speak for 2 minutes, after which the amendment will be withdrawn; further, that the Senate then proceed to votes in relation to the following amendments in sequence order; provided that there be 2 minutes equally divided between the votes and that no second-degree amendments be in order to the amendment prior to the vote: Schumer amendment No. 2635, Reid amendment No. 2653, Nelson amendment No. 2601, Bingaman amendment No. 2642, Durbin amendment No. 2623, and Nelson amendment No. 2625.

Mr. President, I raise the point, first of all, that we voted on a like amendment a couple of weeks ago. But I want to say why the amendment is defective, as I would have said then. It would require us to raise taxes to extend expiring tax cuts, but it would allow entitlement spending to continue to grow without any offset. This then creates a double standard between current tax law and current spending law.

The amendment also is not germane, and so I raise a point of order.

Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. This is an increase in the price of gasoline. Also, I don't know how many times we have to vote on a windfall profits tax. This is at least the third or fourth time.

Although there is a tax credit that the tax funds, I want everybody to know there is no guarantee that the tax will not be passed on to consumers with these higher prices at the pump as well as home heating.

This amendment raises revenue. The bill before us raises revenue from oil already taxed. This new tax is not well designed and should be defeated.

I raise a point of order that the amendment is not germane.

Mr. President, I happen to be the original author of section 45, renewable fuels.

I have extended this provision already through 2008. The amendment will undermine the reconciliation bill by going beyond our 5-year budget window, and the amendment is no longer paid for.

So, regrettably, I oppose this specific amendment. But as the author of section 45, you can be assured that when it is necessary to extend it, we will. I ask you to vote against this amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment is simply not necessary. The first enrollment period began--can you believe it--just 2 days ago, and somebody says, You know, it is not long enough. It is going to last for 6 months--until May 15.

There are lots of resources available. As one example, States have counselors available to assist beneficiaries under the State Health Insurance Program.

That is the whole point of that program--to help beneficiaries understand the Medicare benefits in the legislation.

The bottom line is that it is no picnic to sort through the fine print of health insurance. It even may rank among the most unpopular and complicated responsibilities of American adulthood--like deciphering your income tax.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services developed a nationwide network of other community-based organizations that can provide beneficiaries one-on-one assistance. The prescription drug plans base their proposal to serve Medicare beneficiaries on the enrollment period specified in the law. The amendment would affect those proposals and could lead to higher costs for both beneficiaries and the government.

I, for one, am tired of people on the other side seeming to have a lack of confidence in our American senior citizens who are often well informed about the choices they can make and make good decisions.

This amendment is not needed, and I raise a point of order on germaneness.

Mr. President, I know this amendment is well-intended because if there is anything I hear from my constituents, particularly small business people, it is the problems with health insurance. But it is not going to work with this legislation because it is going to make the reconciliation process out of order.

So I ask the Members to oppose it.

Mr. President, this amendment is also well intended. It is not germane. I am not going to raise a point of germaneness. I raise the point that it does not fit in with the reconciliation.

Mr. President, in conjunction with the Craig amendment, I had an amendment I was going to offer as a substitute. So I want the Grassley amendment on there as well.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. President, I raise a point of order on the germaneness of the amendment.

Mr. President, the substance of the legislation is difficult to argue with, but this is an outlay, and you can't have outlays in this particular reconciliation bill. So I raise the point of order.

Mr. President, this is one of those amendments we have dealt with four or five times. It is a tax on consumers by raising the price of gasoline. It may be used for a good purpose, but it affects the germaneness. I raise a point of order on germaneness. I ask my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

Mr. President, this is another way of cutting back on the mortgage deduction, the charitable deduction, and the State and local tax deduction. When these provisions of phaseout of deductions were put in years ago, it was subterfuge for raising the marginal tax rate without raising the marginal tax rate.

From Iowa, we are very transparent. If one wants to raise the marginal tax rate, raise the marginal tax rate but do not do it by subterfuge. Besides, this amendment is not germane. I raise a point of germaneness.

Mr. President, I have a request for 2 Members to change the order of authorship of amendments, so I ask unanimous consent that the previously agreed amendment No. 2645 should be listed as Coleman and Pryor, instead of Pryor and Coleman.

I ask unanimous consent we accept this amendment.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a minute?

As modified?

The modified amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that we accept the amendment.

Mr. President, I yield my 1 minute.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment. I am not going to raise a point of order.

I ask for a voice vote.

Mr. President, I send to the desk the managers' amendment.

Traditionally, managers' amendments have been worked out with both sides of the aisle.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

Let me say that I agree with the amendment's purpose to combat abusive tax shelters. We need to eradicate the phony tax schemes that abuse our tax laws at the expense of honest taxpayers. I have worked hard to enact legislation to combat tax shelters by shutting them down and raising the penalties on those who promote and participate in those phony deals. This bill contains many more provisions that do just that. I will add to the bill the increased penalties on tax shelter promoters and on aiders and abettors, and I will support these provisions in conference. These provisions will help deter the activities of those who sell illegal tax schemes and those who help participants in these schemes.

I share the Senator's desire to combat tax shelters, and I share his goals of deterring banks' participation in tax shelters and in exploring ways to let agencies work together to prevent tax shelter activity. However, I think that your amendment has some technical matters that I would like my staff to work through with your staff for future consideration. Combating tax shelters is a constant battle that we will continue to fight.

I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Utah.

No, it is my intention that the provision should not affect the ability of charities to borrow to purchase life insurance, particularly where the people insured are officers, directors, employees or in some cases established donors of the charity that benefits.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr. President, I would be happy if Ms. Murkowski explained this issue in further detail.

Mr. President, I thank Ms. Murkowski for explaining this issue in more detail.

Mr. President, we are ready for third reading.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I spend most of my time with the work of the Judiciary Committee and the work of the Finance Committee. I do not get into intelligence and Armed Services issues very often. But I listened to Senator Kennedy's criticism of President Bush and Vice President Cheney that they deceived the American people.

I saw some things on television last night of which Senator Kennedy ought to be reminded. If he watched television last night, he might have a little different view.

I heard him say that President Bush maybe had more information than Congress had, and so it was wrong for the President today to say that Congress is rewriting history in any way because he maybe had more information than we had. I believe that is what Senator Kennedy said.

I do not know for sure if the President has more information than we have because when I go upstairs to S-407, to our secure briefing room, I am assuming I am getting the same information as the President is getting. Perhaps not as often, but getting the same information. So I think it is ludicrous to say that Members of the Senate cannot be up to speed on what the threats are to our Nation. But, for sure, if he had watched television last night, he would have heard a speech by President Clinton in 1998. The speech was on the threat of Saddam Hussein to our country at that time. Surely, Senator Kennedy cannot deny that President Clinton had exactly the same information President Bush would have had from our intelligence community. I very clearly heard President Clinton, when he was President, speak of the terrible threat that Saddam Hussein was to the world and to America, and that he was going down a road to do something about it.

Now, obviously, that did not happen. But we did pass a resolution called the

Iraqi Liberation Act, where Congress, in a unanimous vote took a position at that period of time that we considered Saddam Hussein a threat and that he ought to be removed from office, from the leadership of his country.

If President Clinton, while he was in office, using that intelligence, saw Saddam Hussein as a threat, the same way President Bush did, I do not see how any Democrat can be on the floor of the Senate and say the President of the United States is deceiving the American people.

Also, last night I happened to hear a 2- or 3-minute speech by Senator Clinton, made in 2002, how horrible Saddam Hussein was and how he was somebody to fear and a threat and the inclination of doing something about it.

It is intellectually dishonest for any Democrat to come to the floor and accuse our President of misleading the American people. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. Have they no shame?

I have something I want to refer to because we have had people outside the Congress, outside the administration, look at some of these very issues. We had the Robb-Silberman commission report. Senator Robb is a former Democratic Member of this body. Judge Silberman is a Republican, served on the DC Circuit. They gave a report about Presidential daily briefings versus what is in the National Intelligence Estimate. There is no significant difference between the two reports, the Presidential daily briefing and the National Intelligence Estimate. Quoting from the report:

It was not that the intelligence was markedly different.

Rather, it was that the PDBs and the SEIBs, with their

attention-grabbing headlines and drumbeat of repetition, left

an impression of many corroborating reports where in fact

there were very few sources. And in other instances,

intelligence suggesting the existence of weapons programs was

conveyed to senior policymakers, but later information

casting doubt upon the validity of that intelligence was not.

That is shortcomings of our intelligence community, the same shortcomings that President Clinton probably experienced during his time in office, when he was making estimates of the threat of Saddam Hussein, the same way that President Bush was making those estimates.

The Robb-Silberman commission found Presidential daily briefings to contain similar intelligence in ``more alarmist'' and ``less nuanced'' language. Continuing to quote:

As problematic as the October 2002 [National Intelligence

Estimate] was, it was not the Community's biggest analytic

failure on Iraq. Even more misleading was the river of

intelligence that flowed from the CIA to top policymakers

over long periods of time--in the President's Daily Brief and

in its more widely distributed companion, the Senior

Executive Intelligence Brief. These daily reports were, if

anything, more alarmist and less nuanced than the [National

Intelligence Estimate].

That is what one former Democratic Senator and a Republican judge, appointed to a commission to look into this, have reported. When you take all of these things into consideration, plus the quotes of Senator Clinton that I referred to in the year 2002 that I saw on television last night, or the statements by President Clinton in 1998 when he was President that I saw on television last night, it seems to me it is absolutely wrong and misleading to come up here and say the President of the United States and the Vice President were deceiving the American people, particularly when Senators can have briefings if they want them.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a true American hero, SSG Kyle B. Wehrly. On November 3, 2005, Staff Sergeant Wehrly was tragically killed in action during Operation Iraqi Freedom by an improvised explosive device outside of Ashraf, Iraq. He served with B Battery of the 2nd battalion, 123rd Field Artillery Regiment in the Army National Guard.

I request that all Americans join me today in honoring Staff Sergeant Wehrly. We should all remember his bravery, his compassion, and his final sacrifice to the cause of freedom. Throughout our history, great men and women have stood up and given their lives for their country, and it is with great sadness that we pay tribute to another brave American whose time with us was all too short.

Staff Sergeant Wehrly patriotically joined the National Guard when he was only a junior in high school and was sent to the Middle East in October 2004. Upon his arrival in Iraq, his father, Rev. Peter Wehrly of Springfield, IL, recalls that his son only wanted to be sent things he could give away to the Iraqi children. ``All he wanted was stuff for kids. Candy, flip-flops. . . . We had five boxes of stuff. He didn't want anything for himself,'' Reverend Wehrly said.

All those who knew Staff Sergeant Wehrly will greatly miss him. My prayers go out to his family and friends in their time of grief, his father Peter, his mother Nita, and his wife Janet. We should especially remember Staff Sergeant Wehrly's 6-year-old daughter, Kylee, who will unfortunately grow up with too few memories of her courageous and compassionate father. Our thoughts and prayers are with her and with the entire family. It is important to remind them and to remind all Americans that Staff Sergeant Wehrly did not die in vain but, rather, died protecting his country and protecting the freedom of countless individuals around the world. May he always be remembered as the true American hero that he was.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 17, 2005 at 10 a.m. in 328A, Senate Russell Office Building. The purpose of this Committee hearing will be to consider the role of U.S. agriculture in the control and eradication of avian influenza.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 17, 2005, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``A Review of the GAO Report on the Sale of Financial Products to Military Personnel.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, November 17, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., on pending Committee business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold a business meeting on November 17, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. to consider the following agenda:

S. 1708 ``Emergency Lease Requirements Act of 2005.''

S. 1496 ``Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2005.''

S. 1165 ``James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge Expansion

Act of 2005.''

S.__ ``Army Corps Assessment Authorization for the State of

Louisiana.''

Eight Committee resolutions to authorize the remainder of GSA's FY06 Capital Investment and Leasing Program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold a hearing on November 17, 2005 at 9:35 a.m. to evaluate the degree to which the preliminary findings on the failure of the levees are being incorporated into the restoration of hurricane protection.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, November 17, 2005, at 10 a.m. for a hearing titled, ``From Proposed to Final: Evaluating Regulations for the National Security Personnel System.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, November 17, 2005, at 10 a.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on the In Re Tribal Lobbying Matters, et al.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, November 17, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. in Senate Dirksen Office Building Room 226.

Agenda

I. Nominations

Joseph Frank Bianco, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York; Timothy Mark Burgess, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Alaska; Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky; Eric Nicholas Vitaliano, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York; James O'Gara, to be Deputy Director for Supply Reduction, Office of National Drug Control Policy; Emilio Gonzalez, to be Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security; Catherine Lucille Hanaway, to be U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri; Carol E. Dinkins, to be Chairman of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Alan Charles Raul, to be Vice Chairman of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.

II. Bills

S. 1088, Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005, Kyl, Cornyn, Grassley, Hatch;

S. 1789, Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005, Specter, Leahy, Feinstein, Feingold;

S. 751, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act, Feinstein, Kyl;

H.R. 683, Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005, Smith-TX;

S. 1967, A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to certain activities of the Secret Service, and for other purposes, Specter;

S. 1961, Extending the Child Safety Pilot Program Act of 2005, Biden, Hatch, Cornyn;

S. 1354, Wartime Treatment Study Act, Feingold, Grassley, Kennedy;

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Recent Developments in Assessing Future Asbestos Claims Under the FAIR Act'' on Thursday, November 17, 2005 at 2 p.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Panel I: Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Ph.D., Director, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC.

Panel II: Charles Bates, Ph.D., Chairman, Bates White LLC, Washington, DC; Laura Welch, M.D., Medical Director, Center to Protect Workers Rights, Washington, DC; Mark Peterson, Ph.D., President, Legal Analysis Systems, Thousand Oaks, CA; Mark Lederer, Chief Financial Officer, Claims Resolution Management Corporation (aka The Manville Trust), Katonah, NY; Denise Martin, Ph.D., Sr. Vice President, National Economic Research Associates, New York, NY.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 17, 2005 at 10:30 a.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 17, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on African Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 17, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on African Organizations and Institutions: Cross- Continental Progress.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Aviation be authorized to meet on Thursday, November 17, 2005, at 10 a.m., on Aviation Safety.

Mr. President, for the leader I have a unanimous consent request that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 285, S. 705.

I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, before I give my reasons to my colleagues for why they should support this legislation and why it came out of my committee, there are several thank-yous I would like to give, first to Senator Baucus because this is truly a bipartisan bill that came out of committee. In fact, I think it came out totally unanimous. Over a period of many months working with Senator Baucus, we were able to put something together to get that kind of bipartisan support.

Then later on, the HELP Committee reported a bill. There was extremely great cooperation between Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy with Senator Baucus and me. I do not say this tongue-in-cheek, I say it as a matter of fact: I think if one can get Senator Enzi and Senator Grassley together on one side of the aisle and Senator Baucus and Senator Kennedy together on the other side of the aisle, there ought to be something that ought to pass this body.

I also lend compliments and support for helping move this bill along to Senator Mikulski and Senator DeWine because they had a very controversial amendment--they may not have thought it was controversial--and we were able to work out some understandings beyond the action on this floor to accomplish that. So we would not be here today doing this bill without Senator Mikulski and Senator DeWine's cooperation. I thank the Senator from Maryland for that, and Senator DeWine as well.

I am very pleased that the Senate now is turning their attention to what we call the Pension Security and Transparency Act, 2005. It is a bipartisan bill, and I support it. I think every Member of the Senate ought to be proud to support this bill and, of course, only a rollcall will show that.

This is a bill that is about one thing--improving the retirement security of all Americans. It will improve Americans' retirement years in many different ways. Much of the public focus on this legislation has been on the comprehensive pension funding reforms that are in the legislation. Those reforms are very important, but before I talk about those, I wish to spend a couple of minutes talking about other important provisions in the bill.

No. 1, the bill represents a completion of the post-Enron retirement plan reform that I have worked out with my good friend Senator Baucus, Democrat ranking member. We all remember that when Enron spiraled into bankruptcy and the value of that company's stock evaporated, Enron employees had 401(k) plans locked in Enron stock. They had no chance of diversifying their 401(k) portfolios, and they were blocked from selling Enron stock at the time top executives were cashing that stock out with big gains for them. This bill would say that Enron practice is unacceptable for any company in the future. Employees should not be forced to stuff their 401(k) plans with company stock. Diversification is the most fundamental principle of sound investment strategy. The bipartisan legislation before us today then guarantees that employees have the right to diversify their 401(k) accounts.

This bipartisan bill also seeks to increase savings by adopting new rules to promote automatic enrollment in 401(k) plans. Very often, I am afraid, the hardest dollar to save is that first dollar. Once people begin to save, it can become a habit that lasts a lifetime. Automatic enrollment means that saving that first dollar will be easier, less redtape, and it means that millions of Americans then will be saving many times more than what they save today. Obviously, every month we get statistics on savings that say Americans are almost, throughout the entire globe, the ones who save the least.

The bipartisan bill before us today also simplifies retirement plan rules, making it easier and less burdensome for employers to give retirement plans to their employees. These types of changes will be particularly helpful to small businesses, which are often discouraged from sponsoring a retirement plan because of the costs, administrative costs particularly, and the redtape burdens. The bipartisan bill before us today would allow small businesses to combine a defined benefit plan with a 401(k) plan, and they would do this into one simple plan called DB(k). This type of combined plan will give employees the best of both worlds at the same time.

Speaking of combining the best of both worlds, the bipartisan bill we are considering today provides long-needed clarifications that cash balance and other types of hybrid pension plans are not inherently age discriminatory. Hybrid pensions combine positive features of both the traditional pension plan and the defined contribution plans. These plans have long provided meaningful retirement benefits to employees. Today we will help to lift the cloud of legal uncertainty over these plans. At the same time, we also ensure that the rights of participants are protected and that the plans truly do meet the needs of today's mobile workforce by requiring faster vesting of employees' benefits in those particular plans.

Finally, then, I will refer to the pension funding changes in this bill, those things that really have gotten the most attention and maybe are somewhat controversial. This bill honors a promise that we made way back in 1974, before I came to Congress, when the law governing plans, called ERISA, was enacted. That promise was made that the pensions of rank-and-file employees should not depend on the financial solvency of their particular employer. ERISA, the law, says that it is OK for a nonqualified pension of senior management to be exposed to the company's risk of bankruptcy. But then when it comes to the rank-and- file employee, people who probably had as much to do with making the company as the manager, people who worked hard all their lives in hopes of a good retirement, and a pension being a part of that good retirement--those people's golden years should not be ruined because of their employer falling on hard times.

ERISA is meant to protect against that, and we are making some changes to make sure that ERISA does what it was originally intended to do in 1974, without using the taxpayer as a possible backstop. ERISA, I hope people believe, has worked pretty well for the last 30 years. But we found that in recent years there are times that the promise of ERISA is not honored. So, today, we are here to fulfill the promise and to let the American people know that if you have been promised a pension, we are going to make sure that you receive it.

The pension funding reform in this bill also stands for another bedrock American principle that if you make a promise, you are responsible for your own promise. We all know that most companies fund their pension plans in a very responsible manner. Unfortunately, there are a few--and it only takes a few bad apples to ruin the whole barrel of apples--but a few bad apples who have abused loopholes. Those are loopholes that are in the current rules to avoid funding pensions in a way that shows that they are responsible for their own promises.

Those few who have taken advantage of these loopholes have often, in the end, dumped their pension plans on the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, the Government agency that was set up to provide the insurance; let's say in a sense like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation does, for savers in bank accounts. These companies have essentially said we cannot pay our bills. Someone else is going to have to pay them for us. That is the PBGC.

Unfortunately, the people they want to pay are other employers who have done the right thing and have guaranteed their employees the pensions they promised. They are able to deliver on those promises. Those employers who are honest and upright get stuck with the bill, in the form of higher premiums to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation.

I think we would all agree that is not fair, and it is no way to run a pension system. Even more unfair is the concept of a taxpayer bailout of the PBGC. One thing that I am for in this legislation is the attempt to make sure this does not happen, that the taxpayers are not laid bare for this obligation that the corporation ought to pay, but that goes back to the irresponsible actions of a few bad apples who do not fund their pensions adequately. I do not want another savings and loan situation like we had in the late 1980s coming out of bad policy in the

The gentleman from North Carolina is correct in his understanding of the provision, that Congress intends for Treasury to have wide latitude and flexibility in determining which plans could qualify for safe harbor protection.

The cash balance plan conversion described by the distinguished gentleman would indeed be within the scope of the authority intended for the regulatory safe harbor.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the conference report to accompany H.R. 2862, the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Act. While I will be voting for this conference report, I have grave concerns regarding the cuts in the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants Program.

The Byrne/JAG program is the primary Federal assistance program for State and local law enforcement's counter-drug activities. This program is critical to fighting the domestic war on drugs. In my State of Iowa, this grant program funds highly successful drug task forces. I fear that without these grants, many of these task forces will disappear and the threat from methamphetamine will only grow larger.

I have a letter from Sheriff Thomas Faust, the executive director of the National Sheriff's Association. His letter raises many of the concerns I have already highlighted with regard to the JAG program. Sheriff Faust's letter warns that, ``Cuts of this magnitude seriously inhibit law enforcement's abilities and endanger the safety and well being of our communities! In order to keep communities safe from crime and free of drugs, law enforcement must be given the resources they need! The fiscal year 2006 CJS appropriations bill does not provide for those resources.''

While I have fears that these cuts in the JAG program will have grave results, because the conference report funds other critical programs, I will vote in support of the conference report.

I ask unanimous consent to print the above-referenced letter in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate begin consideration of S. 2020, the tax reconciliation bill.

Mr. President, before Senator Baucus and I give our opening statements, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina for a statement on another subject, and then I presume the Senator from New York wants to follow him for 5 minutes. So there will be 10 minutes before

we start this bill, but the 10 minutes is off the 20 hours allotted to this bill.

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

Mr. President, I want to tell my fellow Senators why they should support this legislation, and most importantly thank Democrats for being so patient while Republicans were figuring out a compromise that we could get a majority of Republicans and all members of the committee behind. I thank Republicans for helping us work something out that we could get done. I have enjoyed the cooperation of Senator Baucus. Even though we haven't agreed on the details of this specific piece of legislation--I think you heard Senator Baucus speak about the bill that just passed the Senate, the pension bill--there was full cooperation not only between Republicans and Democrats but between two different committees that had jurisdiction over it. There will be differences between Republicans and Democrats on this bill.

I compliment my colleague, Senator Baucus, for helping us move things along and being so patient in the process.

This afternoon we begin consideration of an important tax relief measure. The bill before the committee today does three important things. First, it acts on our commitment to provide rebuilding assistance to areas of the country devastated by this year's relentless hurricane season. Second, it provides tax relief for American families by ensuring that there is no interruption in tax provisions that are expiring this year. And third, it provides incentives for increased charitable giving while prohibiting transactions that misuse or abuse charitable organizations and their assets.

An important part of this bill is delivery on a commitment we made to residents of the gulf region, as well as more recently impacted areas of Texas and Florida, to provide much-needed relief and resources for economic rebuilding to those areas.

I want to thank the members of the delegations from States that were devastated by Katrina, Rita, and Wilma during this hurricane season. Specifically, I would like to thank Senator Lott, a senior member of our Finance Committee. I would also like to thank Senators Cochran, Landrieu, Vitter, Shelby, Martinez, and Bill Nelson for their input.

I know some are disappointed we could not do more, especially with respect to Rita and Wilma. But, with the revenue available, we could not answer every need.

As promised, we have made our best effort to marry up our compassion for displaced persons and damaged communities with attention to fiscal discipline and the best use of taxpayer dollars. This hurricane relief package represents an effort to most efficiently and effectively use resources under the Finance Committee's jurisdiction to assist in the rebuilding and revitalization of those regions. I will reiterate the guiding principles of our hurricane relief legislation.

First, because market forces will be the driver in getting these regions back on their feet, our bill includes only provisions that encourage and incentivize redevelopment.

Second, our package provides resources only to those who incurred uninsured losses and does not provide for a bailout of those who assumed risk as an insurer in our capitalist, free-market system.

Third, we have focused our limited Federal resources on those most in need--like the many devastated small business employers who were the backbones of these economies and who will be the engines of their future growth and prosperity. And, finally, the bill provides front- loaded incentives on a timely basis to encourage people and businesses to return to the region as quickly as possible.

This bill also extends popular tax relief ranging from tax deductions for families sending kids to college to relief from the expanding reach of the alternative minimum tax. If we let these provisions lapse, we are raising taxes on a significant number of taxpayers.

I would like to talk briefly about some of the important initiatives in our bill. The largest provision in the bill--about $30 billion of tax relief--amounts to half of the net tax package and is designed to keep people out of

the Alternative Minimum Tax. This piece of the package affects 14 million American families in every State in this Nation. The AMT is terrible and should be repealed. Until such time, we owe it to American taxpayers to ensure that they are not hit by this stealth tax.

I have a chart here dealing with the AMT. It shows, by magnitude, the number of taxpayers, mostly families with kids, who would benefit from the so-called AMT ``hold-harmless'' in this bill.

Now, everyone should know this information comes from the IRS Statistic of Income. This is the latest available government data on State-by-State effects from tax relief proposals in the 2001 and 2003 legislation. With respect to the AMT, the number for 2006 will roughly double what is shown on this chart. So, any Member who looks at his or her State, should understand the number of families affected will double next year.

There will be critics. You are familiar with them. We all know who they are. They will appear with their charts and their over-the-top rhetoric. They will appear here today and they will claim that our hold-harmless isn't good enough. These critics are very good at criticizing. Let me assure everyone that I don't just want the hold- harmless. I want to reform or eliminate the AMT. I challenge the critics in advance, just as I did in the Spring debates on the budget resolution, to propose an AMT reform plan. Don't just whine about it. Join me in fixing it. I look forward to the critics' plan to fix the

I yield whatever time he consumes to the majority whip.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.