Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. Peru is no ordinary country, and the Peru agreement is no ordinary free-trade agreement. Peru is a vibrant country. It is marked by the diversity of its dramatic and varied landscapes, abundant and rich wildlife, and strong people. Peru provides a home to more than 170 million acres of forest and 84 of the 103 existing ecosystems on the planet. And it is the birthplace of the Inca civilization, the builders of the incomparable Machu Picchu complex in the Andean highlands. Their descendants live on today in Peru's thriving indigenous communities. This remarkable diversity of landscape, wildlife, and people deserves to be protected, and the strong labor and environmental provisions of the Peru agreement ensure that it will. Since 1958, when the United States entered into a free-trade agreement with Israel, we have entered into bilateral or regional free- trade agreements with no fewer than 15 additional countries, and since then Democrats have sought to make labor and environmental issues a greater priority in trade agreements. We have had limited success until now. The Peru agreement is in fact a groundbreaking achievement. Months of complex negotiations involving numerous parties and difficult compromises on all sides resulted in a landmark deal between Congress and the administration. Believe me, this is a very significant and unexpected breakthrough that was achieved not too long ago. We agreed to include strong labor and environmental provisions in all our pending trade agreements beginning with the Peru Free Trade Agreement. That was the understanding, all agreements beginning with Peru--truly a remarkable accomplishment, and we should be proud of what we have achieved. For the first time, the Peru agreement requires the parties to implement the five core International Labor Organization standards. For the first time, the Peru agreement requires the parties to implement seven core environmental treaties. And, for the first time, the Peru agreement makes these labor and environmental provisions fully enforceable by subjecting them to the same dispute settlement mechanism that applies to all other obligations. Some may criticize the agreement as not going far enough, but these provisions are in fact exactly what many of us in Congress in the labor and environmental movements have been seeking to include in trade agreements for decades. They will benefit workers, they will encourage environmentally sustainable development, and they will ensure the Peru agreement helps to export our fundamental values abroad at the same time that it helps to export our products and services abroad. The agreement also strengthens our ties with a stalwart ally in an increasingly troubled part of the world. It is an agreement with a leading reformer in our hemisphere, it is an agreement with one of the fastest growing economies in Latin America, and it is an agreement with solid commercial benefits for the United States. Mr. President, 98 percent of Peruvian exports to the United States already receive duty- free treatment under various United States preference programs. This agreement levels the playing field and allows our exports to enjoy the same benefits in Peru. To cite one example, more than two-thirds of current United States farm exports to Peru, including delicious Montana beef, I might add, and wheat, will receive immediate duty-free access to Peru under the agreement. All remaining tariffs on Montana and other U.S. agricultural goods will be eliminated within 17 years. For Peru, this agreement means better conditions for its workers, strengthened protection for its amazingly diverse environment, and greater integration into the world economy. Our neighbors to the south can hope it will represent a first step toward increased prosperity, transparency, and stability for the Latin American region as a whole. This agreement demonstrates what Congress and the administration can achieve when we work together. I hope we can build on the success of this agreement to heal the wounds of previous battles and I hope we can begin to recreate a consensus for trade liberalization going forward. But the Peru agreement is only one step in this process. Enactment of a robust and modernized trade adjustment assistance program should be our next focus, certainly before this Congress considers additional free trade agreements. We cannot express support for trade agreements unless we fulfill our responsibility to ensure that trade-displaced workers, whether in manufacturing or the services sector, are able to retrain and retool for the 21st century economy. I look forward to working with my colleagues and with the administration on trade adjustment assistance reauthorization very soon. For all these reasons, I am pleased to support the United States Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act and I urge my colleagues to support it as well. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent the time be charged equally against both sides.

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today we are pleased to introduce the Tax Technical Corrections Act of 2007. Technical corrections measures are routine for major tax acts, and are necessary to ensure that the provisions of the acts are working consistently with congressional intent, or to provide clerical corrections. Because these measures carry out congressional intent, no revenue gain or loss is scored from them.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my Colleague Senator Grassley in introducing legislation to provide that certain tax planning inventions cannot be patented. America's patent system promotes innovation and competitiveness in all industries. Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution authorized Congress to establish a patent system. That system is meant to protect inventors and promote the progress of science and ``useful arts.'' Today, we refer to this as technological innovation. In the Patent Act of 1793, Congress enacted a broad definition for inventions that can be patented. But conditions were included. The definition for what could be patented in 1793 is remarkably similar to the definition in the United States Code today. And not every process or discovery is patentable. In 17th century England, the Crown would grant a monopoly over a particular business line. Peter Meinhardt, in his book, ``Inventions, Patents and Monopoly,'' described these ``letters-patent'' that provided exclusive manufacturing rights as enriching ``the grantee at the expense of the community.'' This is what our Founders and Congress sought to avoid. Today, a number of attorneys and accountants have begun applying for and obtaining tax patents. These involve financial products, banking, estate and gift, and tax preparation software. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted at least 60 of these tax patents. About 90 applications are pending. I have heard from tax practitioners, including those in Montana, who fear that tax patents will impede their ability to provide advice to their clients. They are concerned that even obvious applications of the tax law may become protected by tax patents. They also tell me that some tax strategy patent applications appear to be for tax shelters and other tax-motivated transactions. The Treasury is also concerned about patent protection for tax planning methods. In September, Treasury issued proposed regulations requiring the disclosure of transactions that use a patented tax strategy. While this is a step in the right direction, these rules do not go far enough to fix the real problem. A taxpayer shouldn't be in the position of choosing to file a return and pay a patent holder a fee for using a tax strategy in the return. No one should have to pay a toll charge to comply with the tax laws. They also should not have to conduct a due diligence check every time that they comply with the tax laws to see if they are infringing a tax patent. As I understand it, a taxpayer might use a tax strategy based on advice from a tax practitioner. The practitioner would prepare and file a tax return using the patented strategy. The tax practitioner's advice, the taxpayer's use of the transaction, and the preparation and filing of the tax return could all be considered patent infringement. These tax patents can also create traps for the unwary. If taxpayers used a patented strategy, not knowing that it is not permitted under the Internal Revenue Code, they could be subject to additional taxes, penalties and interest. Congress has previously enacted laws to limit what can be patented. Limiting patentability for tax patents is another situation where Congress must act. I introduce our bill today with Senator Grassley. There are a number of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. It would provide that the Patent Trademark Office could not issue patents for tax planning inventions. Tax planning inventions are generally tax plans, strategies, techniques, schemes, processes, or systems that are designed to reduce, minimize, avoid, or defer a taxpayer's Federal or State tax liability. There is an important exception. This change would not affect the use of tax preparation software to help practitioners and taxpayers prepare tax or information returns. Title 26 of the U.S. Code contains the Internal Revenue Code, a public law that is available to everyone. No one should have the capability to monopolize the tax law through the patenting of tax strategies. This is why I believe that these tax planning inventions should not be granted patent protection. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and an analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS. By filing this bill, we hope interested parties and practitioners will comment and provide direction on further edits, additions, or deletions. These comments should be submitted in a timely manner. It is our hope that we can move this package of technicals in December if possible. Mr. President, I ask consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today we are pleased to introduce the Tax Technical Corrections Act of 2007. Technical corrections measures are routine for major tax acts, and are necessary to ensure that the provisions of the acts are working consistently with congressional intent, or to provide clerical corrections. Because these measures carry out congressional intent, no revenue gain or loss is scored from them.

Mr. BAUCUS. By filing this bill, we hope interested parties and practitioners will comment and provide direction on further edits, additions, or deletions. These comments should be submitted in a timely manner. It is our hope that we can move this package of technicals in December if possible. Mr. President, I ask consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my Colleague Senator Grassley in introducing legislation to provide that certain tax planning inventions cannot be patented. America's patent system promotes innovation and competitiveness in all industries. Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution authorized Congress to establish a patent system. That system is meant to protect inventors and promote the progress of science and ``useful arts.'' Today, we refer to this as technological innovation. In the Patent Act of 1793, Congress enacted a broad definition for inventions that can be patented. But conditions were included. The definition for what could be patented in 1793 is remarkably similar to the definition in the United States Code today. And not every process or discovery is patentable. In 17th century England, the Crown would grant a monopoly over a particular business line. Peter Meinhardt, in his book, ``Inventions, Patents and Monopoly,'' described these ``letters-patent'' that provided exclusive manufacturing rights as enriching ``the grantee at the expense of the community.'' This is what our Founders and Congress sought to avoid. Today, a number of attorneys and accountants have begun applying for and obtaining tax patents. These involve financial products, banking, estate and gift, and tax preparation software. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted at least 60 of these tax patents. About 90 applications are pending. I have heard from tax practitioners, including those in Montana, who fear that tax patents will impede their ability to provide advice to their clients. They are concerned that even obvious applications of the tax law may become protected by tax patents. They also tell me that some tax strategy patent applications appear to be for tax shelters and other tax-motivated transactions. The Treasury is also concerned about patent protection for tax planning methods. In September, Treasury issued proposed regulations requiring the disclosure of transactions that use a patented tax strategy. While this is a step in the right direction, these rules do not go far enough to fix the real problem. A taxpayer shouldn't be in the position of choosing to file a return and pay a patent holder a fee for using a tax strategy in the return. No one should have to pay a toll charge to comply with the tax laws. They also should not have to conduct a due diligence check every time that they comply with the tax laws to see if they are infringing a tax patent. As I understand it, a taxpayer might use a tax strategy based on advice from a tax practitioner. The practitioner would prepare and file a tax return using the patented strategy. The tax practitioner's advice, the taxpayer's use of the transaction, and the preparation and filing of the tax return could all be considered patent infringement. These tax patents can also create traps for the unwary. If taxpayers used a patented strategy, not knowing that it is not permitted under the Internal Revenue Code, they could be subject to additional taxes, penalties and interest. Congress has previously enacted laws to limit what can be patented. Limiting patentability for tax patents is another situation where Congress must act. I introduce our bill today with Senator Grassley. There are a number of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. It would provide that the Patent Trademark Office could not issue patents for tax planning inventions. Tax planning inventions are generally tax plans, strategies, techniques, schemes, processes, or systems that are designed to reduce, minimize, avoid, or defer a taxpayer's Federal or State tax liability. There is an important exception. This change would not affect the use of tax preparation software to help practitioners and taxpayers prepare tax or information returns. Title 26 of the U.S. Code contains the Internal Revenue Code, a public law that is available to everyone. No one should have the capability to monopolize the tax law through the patenting of tax strategies. This is why I believe that these tax planning inventions should not be granted patent protection. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and an analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I regret that the Republican side has objected to the request offered by the majority leader. But I am very pleased, frankly, with the objection by the majority leader to the minority leader.

Mr. BAUCUS. The report presents evidence that a pharmaceutical company allegedly tried to intimidate a doctor who raised concerns about Avandia's link to heart problems. A few years ago, the Senate Finance Committee uncovered a similar situation connected to the drug Vioxx. These actions are unacceptable. It is critical that our prescription drugs be developed based on rigorous experimentation, the facts, and the science, not on intimidation and threats of lawsuits. We place a great deal of trust in pharmaceutical companies to make safe and effective products. The health of millions of Americans, from young children to retirees, depends on the careful work of these drug manufacturers. Today, as I said, Senator Grassley and I are placing in the Congressional Record a Senate Finance Committee staff report which describes a very disturbing series of events related to the safety of the diabetes drug, Avandia. The report presents evidence that a pharmaceutical company allegedly tried to intimidate a doctor who raised concerns about Avandia's link to heart problems. This occurred after the doctor gave speeches at 2 scientific meetings where he warned of the cardiovascular risks to those using Avandia, a drug designed to control glucose levels in diabetics. To make matters worse, the company in question denied trying to intimidate the doctor in the press. That claim is seriously challenged by e-mails presented in the staff report. It appears that the company labeled the doctor as a ``renegade'' and all but silenced him by complaining to his department chairman and threatening a lawsuit. In an e-mail contained in the report the doctor in question describes signing a legal document in which he agreed not to discuss the issue in public. He goes on to say that he felt intimidated by the actions of the pharmaceutical company. Is this the tip of the iceberg or just an isolated case? Nobody really knows. But just 3 years ago the Senate Finance Committee uncovered a similar situation connected to the drug Vioxx. A clinical professor at Stanford University said Merck scientists had tried to intimidate him after he raised questions in public about the effects of Vioxx. It was later discovered that Vioxx increased the risk of heart attacks and the drug was withdrawn from the market. Just last week Merck agreed to pay $4.8 billion to settle Vioxx lawsuits. As in the Vioxx case, the concerns raised by the doctor in the Avandia case were followed by complaints by other researchers. And yesterday the FDA added an additional ``black box'' warning to the Avandia label. With the Finance Committee's continued spotlight on this behavior, I hope we can deter similar abuses in the pharmaceutical community. Again, it is critical that our prescription drugs be developed based on rigorous experimentation, facts and science, not on intimidation and threats of lawsuits. I, again, recommend the report to my Senate colleagues, and I very much thank my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, for his efforts here and, again, for his efforts on the work of this investigation.

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank my friends. Mr. President, the goal is to try to fix the alternative minimum tax and to try to get these tax extenders passed. The goal is not to relitigate the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which I think would be the subject of the amendments that the minority side would offer if their consent requests were granted. We are not here to relitigate that; we are here to figure out some way to make sure this Congress allows the alternative minimum tax patch to pass so Americans do not have to pay an alternative minimum tax for tax year 2007, which is the goal. I am very disappointed, frankly, that we are not allowed to get to that point because the other side objected to the request offered by the majority leader to set up a series of votes which would enable us to get to that point--namely, where this body could pass the legislation, probably an amendment by Senator Grassley and myself-- which would accomplish most of the objectives by the other side; namely, dealing with the alternative minimum tax, not paid for, but pay for the extenders. That would have been the third vote if we were to get there; that is, if the minority party allowed us to get there. But, apparently, they do not care about that. Apparently, they do not care about the alternative minimum tax. Apparently, they want to relitigate the 2001 tax cuts, the 2003 tax cuts, to have it extended with mischievous amendments. I remind my colleagues we are here today because back in 1969, Congress passed the alternative minimum tax because so many wealthy taxpayers were not paying any taxes. So we passed AMT. But we made a mistake, frankly; we did not index it. And lo and behold, after all of these years, now taxpayers between $100,000, $200,000, $300,000 of income, many of them are going to have to pay the alternative minimum tax very soon. But, ironically, it is the most wealthy taxpayers in America who are not affected by the alternative minimum tax. It does not hit them. It does not affect them. It does not affect the most wealthy. It just affects those with incomes between, say, $100,000 and $200,000 in income. Why does it not affect the most wealthy? Because on the alternative minimum tax, the capital gains rates are not the alternative minimum tax rates, rather the capital gains rates under the AMT are the regular capital gains rates, and most wealthy people get most of their income paying capital gains taxes because their income is passive rather than ordinary income. So it is a bad provision, the AMT, and we have to fix it. And mark my words, we are going to try to find a way to fix it because it has to be fixed. I am very disappointed, frankly, that the other side would not let us fix it now. It is important we fix it now because the IRS is going to send out forms. The programmers who do the programming for the Tax Code, for the tax provisions in the Tax Code, have to get the right programs out to the American people. If we dally, if we wait--it looks as if now we are going to wait until certainly after Thanksgiving. It looks as if probably we have to wait to the end of the year. Who knows when? Maybe the day before Christmas. That is not the way to do business. So we will find a time. We can bring up legislation to make sure there is a so-called AMT patch, that we do not have AMT affect taxpayers for this year. And we also have to bring up these so-called extender provisions. I think we should pay for those extenders. But we may not be paying for the AMT, and that was going to be the third amendment that was going to be offered today so we can get moving. But I guess that is going to come up another day. I am very disappointed we are not there. Mr. President, the journalist Norman Cousins once said: ``Wisdom consists of the anticipation of consequences.'' By this or any measure, the alternative minimum tax is the most unwise of policy. Congress plainly did not anticipate the AMT's consequences. And the wise course now is plainly to stop it from increasing the taxes of millions of Americans. The Tax Reform Act of 1969 created the AMT. Congress saw that under the tax code of that time, 155 high-income households took advantage of so many tax benefits that they owed little or no income tax. So Congress responded with the AMT. But Congress did not anticipate the consequences. Notably, Congress failed to index the AMT for inflation. And now an increasing number of middle-income Americans are finding themselves subject to this tax. Now, the AMT punishes people for having children. The AMT punishes people for paying high State taxes. And the AMT punishes people with complexity. And many taxpayers who owe the AMT do not realize it until they prepare their returns. Worse yet, many do not realize it until they get a letter from the IRS. Many never see it coming. Listen to what the Congressional Budget Office has reported: [I]f nothing is changed, one in five taxpayers will have AMT liability and nearly every married taxpayer with income between $100,000 and $500,000 will owe the alternative tax. But oddly enough, the AMT would have less effect on households higher up the income scale. Surely these are not the consequences that Congress intended. Protecting working families from the alternative minimum tax is my top tax priority this year. And it remains my goal to repeal AMT altogether. We could do something about it, today. We have a chance to anticipate the consequences, today. We could enact wiser policy, today. Last week, the House passed the bill that was the subject of the unanimous consent request that the Leader just made. It would protect more than 23 million families from a tax increase this year under the AMT. It would extend a number of important tax cuts for research, college expenses, and other priorities. And it is paid for. It is fiscally responsible. Under the unanimous consent agreement just propounded, the Senate could have acted. If we had agreed to this unanimous consent request, we could have prevented the AMT from wielding its unintended consequences 1 more year. I'm disappointed that the Senate did not consent to consider this bill today. But I am not sorry for choosing to protect taxpayers from the AMT, even at some cost. Too many folks are at risk of an unfair tax increase, if Congress fails to act on the AMT. Provisions like the college tuition deduction, State and local sales tax relief, and the research and development tax credit are also in this bill. Those provisions make a real difference for America's families and businesses. I am disappointed that we were not able to extend these expiring provisions. People deserve greater certainty about their tax relief. Now I don't support all of the provisions in the House bill. I would not have written it this way. There are certain targeted provisions that are not strictly extenders that I would not have put in the bill. There are some offsets that I would not have used or that I would write differently. But I do support tax relief. And I support fiscal responsibility. And this was our chance to both ensure tax relief for 23 million Americans and also to avoid saddling our children and grandchildren with debt. Mr. President, many of my colleagues have insisted that we pay for extending the Children's Health Insurance Program. Many have insisted that we pay for extending the farm bill. And many have insisted that we pay for preventing cuts to doctors under Medicare. Well, if paying-as-you-go is good enough for children's health, if it is good enough for America's farmers, and if it is good enough for Medicare, then it ought to be good enough for tax cuts, too. So I regret that there has been objection to considering the House- passed AMT bill. I regret that those who are objecting have prevented us from saving 23 million Americans from the unintended consequences of the AMT. And I regret that those who are objecting have prevented us from moving forward to enact wiser tax policy. National Adoption Day

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I see my good friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, is on the floor. We will both speak on the same subject. I have a statement, and then I think he wants to speak next on the same subject. Today, Senator Grassley and I are placing in the Congressional Record a Senate Finance Committee staff report which describes a very disturbing series of events related to the safety of the diabetes drug Avandia. I commend Senator Grassley for his efforts on this issue, and I recommend this report to my colleagues. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the report be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if I might ask my colleagues to indulge me a little because this is an important subject on the issue at hand. I ask their indulgence for 5 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mary Baker, Tom Louthan, Sara Shepherd, Sam Anderson, Travis Cossitt, Siri Smillie, Matt Slonaker, Charles Kovatch, John Carey, Timothy Kehrer, and Mollie Lane be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on the farm bill.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Disaster Assistance Program in the farm bill. From the beginning, farming has been hard work. In the Book of Genesis, for example, God told Adam: [T]hrough painful toil you will eat of [the land] all the days of your life . . . By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food. Drought and floods, frost and hail have plagued farmers ever since. It is hard work, yet they stick to it. It is vital work to put food on America's table. It has been true since Adam: All farmers suffer disasters. In farming, it is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when. For example, early this year, Congress passed yet another ad hoc disaster assistance package, and I was proud to back that package. But for some farmers, it was too little; it was too late. Producers are still reeling from disasters that occurred 2 years ago. For some producers who had a disaster in the spring of 2005, assistance will not come until late 2007 or early 2008. Today is November 8, and the regulations for that disaster bill we passed in May have not even been published. Yet some Senators are already calling for an extension of that disaster bill through 2007 to cover this summer's crops. Unfortunately, if history repeats itself, Congress will get around to passing another disaster bill around 2010. This is no way to provide disaster assistance. I wish to show a picture of Dave Henderson's farm in Cut Bank, MT. Dave is probably one of the best farmers in Montana. Just look at his lush field of grain. This is what Dave's wheat and barley fields typically look like. During a normal year, Dave raises about 35 bushels of wheat per acre and about 54 bushels of barley per acre. That is normal--35 bushels of wheat and 54 bushels of barley. But 2007 was anything but normal for Cut Bank, MT. From October 1, 2006, through September 1, 2007, Cut Bank received 2 inches of rain. We can see the picture on the left, the result of that lack of rain. You don't raise a crop with 2 inches of rain all season. On my right is a picture of a normal year, and on my left is what happens when there is no rain, about 2 inches over most of the growing season. That is all he received. This fall, Dave harvested about 4 bushels of wheat per acre, and his barley averaged about 3 bushels per acre. You cannot pay your bills when your crop is about 10 percent of normal. How much assistance do you think Dave received from the disaster bill we passed in May? What do you think? The answer is nothing. Why? Because he did not plant before the February 28 cutoff date. Consider this: If Dave had planted winter wheat instead of spring wheat, he would have received a disaster payment. But he didn't. He planted spring wheat instead of winter wheat, so he didn't get a disaster payment. Congress can do better for our farmers. Because of Dave and thousands of farmers and ranchers across the countryside, I am proud we included a reliable disaster program in our farm bill. In the future, farmers will know that if they suffer a disaster, help will be on the way. It won't make them rich, but it will help them get by. I am proud and grateful for the support of the disaster program we have in our farm bill, the support it has received from all around the countryside and from a broad range of agricultural groups. I have a letter, which I am showing, from the National Farmers Union signed by over 50 groups from all across our country. This letter is signed by 50 different farm groups. We can see the whole list. I know the print is a bit small: National Farmers Organization, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, ARCAF, just to name a few. It is a large group: American Farm Bureau, Cape Cod Cranberry Growers, Texas Sheep and Goat Raisers Association, National Grape Cooperative Association, and the Independent Community Bankers of America. Why bankers? They have just as much at stake as farmers do. They rely on each other. Bankers will more likely give a loan to a farmer if he thinks the farmer is going to have some kind of income with a crop or reasonable disaster assistance program. But a banker is less likely to provide that loan if it looks as if that farmer is not going to have any income or if there is not a good disaster assistance program, assuming if there is hail, drought, or whatnot. I have another letter of support from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association representing cattle ranchers all across the country, showing a broad array of support. It is not just farmers but also livestock producers who very much want and support the agricultural Disaster Assistance Program that is in the farm bill. These letters demonstrate how important reliable disaster assistance is to all sectors of agriculture. It doesn't matter if you are a cattle rancher in Montana or a cranberry grower in Cape Cod; when disaster strikes, this program will provide a reliable safety net. One more interesting point. In addition to helping farmers, the disaster program in the farm bill is good for taxpayers. The program is only available to farmers who purchase crop insurance, and that is why it is also good for taxpayers. Let me explain that a little more. Those farmers who purchase high levels of insurance are eligible for more assistance when they face natural disasters. If you purchase low levels of insurance, you get probably less assistance. The program, therefore, creates a powerful incentive for farmers to purchase high levels of crop insurance and take measures to manage their own risk. When farmers purchase crop insurance, taxpayers save money on disaster assistance. Now, I will put up a chart that shows this a little more graphically, by definition. This graph compares the disaster payments made to sample Midwestern farms that are under both the ad hoc and new disaster program. The ad hoc is in blue, and in the disaster program, in the farm bill, the bars are in red. Under the ad hoc disaster bills, farmers' payments would have been about $9,000 for a 75-percent crop loss--$9,000 for a 75-percent crop loss--compared to only $3,000 under the new program. If you had a 50-percent crop loss, the ad hoc payment would be $3,400 but, under the new program, $3,300. You might ask: What in the world is going on? Why in the world would we, in our farm bill, provide disaster assistance at the lower level, with a 75-percent crop loss, than in the ad hoc program? As I mentioned earlier, it is because of crop insurance. You are more likely to get more assistance when you purchase crop insurance. That is a good thing. That saves taxpayers money because we will be paying out fewer dollars under the disaster program. The program also saves taxpayers money by basing payments on whole- farm losses. In the past, disaster payments were based upon losses to individual units or individual crops on the farm. Farmers were never asked if the farm's other units or their crops had bumper harvests. So it was based on a unit. One crop disaster got payment in the ad hoc disaster programs, even though your whole farm was doing real well on a net basis. You may have had hail to a small part, but the rest of the place was great. That often happens in my part of the world. That doesn't make sense. So we have changed that disaster assistance based on the whole farm on a net basis, and I think that is fairer to the taxpayers. The program will look at all the crops on a farm and only provide assistance if the entire farm has suffered a loss. When disaster payments are based on whole-farm losses and not individual unit losses, taxpayers save money and assistance is delivered to those who need it the most. In closing, our farmers deserve a disaster program that is dependable, that is timely, and is equitable. Our taxpayers also deserve a program that is fiscally sound and requires farmers to manage their risk; i.e., crop insurance. This disaster program accomplishes both. It is a win for agriculture and it is a win for taxpayers. I strongly urge my colleagues to reject any attempt to weaken or cut the disaster program. Farmers such as Dave Henderson deserve better, farmers producing in other parts of the country deserve better, and our taxpayers deserve better. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed for the Record the letters I referred to earlier. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Washington, DC, November 1, 2007. Hon. Max Baucus, U.S. Senator, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Baucus: On behalf of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), and the farmers and ranchers it represents across the Nation, I am writing to express support for the Permanent Disaster Relief Trust Fund that was approved by the Senate Finance Committee earlier this month as part of the Heartland, Habitat, Harvest and Horticulture Act of 2007 (S. 2242). It takes nearly two years for a cow to produce her first calf, and a significant amount of effort and expense is invested in each breeding animal. For this reason, the impact of natural disasters such as hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, blizzards, floods or prolonged drought can be particularly stinging for cattle producers. Appropriate and timely agricultural disaster assistance from the permanent disaster relief program will provide critical assistance to producers when they need it most. In the past, Congress has moved to pass disaster assistance on an ad hoc basis in an effort to help those impacted by catastrophic weather events. It has become abundantly clear, however, that this reactive system of addressing agricultural disasters is no longer an effective or viable means of providing timely aid when it is needed. Producers struggle with difficult management, movement and sale decisions in the midst of a disaster, and the situation is only worsened by the uncertainty that accompanies legislative action. Natural disasters will continue to occur, and NCBA submits that a different approach is needed. While the Permanent Disaster Relief Trust Fund is not perfect, it represents a significant step toward prudent fiscal planning that will serve the interests of both Congress and beef producers. Livestock producers are accustomed to dealing with adverse weather conditions, and most do their best to plan for them. In fact, beef producers have actively sought out measures to mitigate their risk of loss in the case of weather related disasters. An example would be strong producer participation in the Risk Management Agency's (RMA) Pasture, Rangeland and Forage Insurance Pilot Program, which was made available just last year to provide livestock producers in certain geographic areas with a mechanism to insure against losses in forage production. Cattle producers applaud the objectives of this program, and NCBA is committed to working with RMA and others to ensure that workable risk management tools are available to producers. Nevertheless, during periods of extreme and prolonged disaster, access to Federal disaster assistance programs is important to the viability of many livestock operations. In the most devastating instances, when producers have experienced tremendous grazing forage losses or even livestock mortalities, the Permanent Disaster Relief Trust Fund will provide crucial support as producers struggle with additional expenses for supplemental feed, grasslands restoration and herd rebuilding. There will no doubt be challenges in implementing the permanent program, and it is likely that some provisions will need refinement. But, the central tenets of the Permanent Disaster Relief Trust Fund, such as no disincentives for the development and adoption of other insurance and risk management options, eligibility criteria based on actual livestock and/or forage production losses and requirements that any disaster assistance funds are to be directed to only those producers directly impacted by disaster conditions, are a step in the right direction. There is no `silver bullet' solution to addressing agricultural disaster assistance, but NCBA appreciates your efforts on this issue. We look forward to working with you to see the inclusion of this program in the 2007 Farm Bill as it moves through the Senate. Sincerely, John Queen, President, National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my very good friend from Iowa. Senator Grassley is a true gentleman and I deeply appreciate the courtesy he is offering me, as well as my colleague Senator Tester. A few moments ago, the House voted to override the President's veto by a vote of 361 to 54--361 to 54--clearly overriding the President's veto on the WRDA bill. I stand here today asking the Senate to do the same. We too should have a very strong vote to override the President's veto. If the House can vote to override, certainly the Senate can too. This conference report, as we all know, provides authority for the Army Corps of Engineers to move forward on many very long overdue water resource projects. Let's not forget the West's battle with drought and the coasts' recurring struggles against Mother Nature's harsh storms that highlight the pressing need to address our water resource needs. I saw a very alarming article not too long ago, 2 or 3 weeks ago, about the effects of climate change and global warming. It is not just the ice sheets melting and the coastlines rising; there is also increased drought--increased drought in the Southeast and in the Southwest, especially the Southwest. It is tough enough for my part of the country where the average precipitation is about 13 inches a year. That is all it is. I think in Washington, DC, the average precipitation is around 40 inches. In the northern high plains States where we desperately need these projects, the annual precipitation is again about 13 to 14 inches a year. We need help. I must say too it is important to keep in mind that since 1986, Congress enacted legislation known as the Water Resources Development Act, otherwise known as WRDA. Every 2 years since then, Congress has received a WRDA bill from the administration, seeking authorization for water resources projects. These requests provided the Corps and local sponsors with a regular planning schedule. It is kind of like the highway bill. We have people in our country-- the highway bill clearly is the contractors and the States--some ability to plan for the future. That is why we have 5- or 6-year bills. The same is also true with the Water Resources Development Act. We need to give some sense of predictability and some sense of certainty to people so they can plan for projects, in this case the Corps. I must say, however, that the administration has not requested one update of the program--not one--since the year he has been President. So the question is, Why? Why has the President not suggested an update in the program? Well, according to the President, this is not a priority. He says the Congress is not being fiscally responsible. I have to disagree. He is not accurate. Why? Well, one reason is the costs in this legislation reflect an accumulation of projects that need to be authorized because we have not had a WRDA bill for over 6 years. It stands to reason that if we haven't had an authorization for over 6 years, clearly the costs are going to go up a little bit. Investing in our water infrastructure is a cost we cannot afford to put off. I submit it doesn't make any sense to turn our backs on all of these water projects because otherwise they continue to crumble, they continue to erode, and it does not make a lot of sense. In fact, many people are worried about America's competitiveness, and I am one who thinks we do not pay enough attention to our infrastructure; that is, if we are going to compete in the future, we have to have strong highways, we have to have a power system, a telephone system, and we need to have a very good water resource system. We have to get water where it is needed because if we don't, there are going to be huge costs not just in the immediate term but also in the long term. It is very important that this legislation, in my judgment, pass. There are several projects in this bill in the State of Montana, my home State. One is the Yellowstone River and Tributaries Recovery project, and another is called the Lower Yellowstone project at Intake, MT; third, the Missouri River and Tributaries Recovery project; the Upper Basin of the Missouri River project, and a riverfront revitalization project in Missoula, MT. These projects will all improve and protect our valuable water resources. The old saying about whiskey and water: You fight over water. Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting over. It is because water is such a precious and valuable resource. There is also an important authorization for a very important project in my State of Montana, and that is the rehabilitation and improvement of an aging water project we call the Hi-Line. If you look at the State of Montana, it is a highway that goes across northern Montana. We call it Hi-Line. It is as though we are high above the Earth because we go across northern Montana and up there, there is something called the St. Mary Diversion. It is a Federal project built years ago. It is a mess. It is dilapidated and crumbling. I have been up there not too long ago. I have been up there a couple of times. I am embarrassed that the U.S. Government has not kept up the system, not kept up the operation, and not kept it going. I am embarrassed and I feel bad, and in fact I am angry that half of the people in the area--it is an Indian reservation as well, and a lot of people have moved off the reservation, and we have to address this. This legislation does address it. It is very important. Without it, I might add, the Lower Milk River, which falls out of the Diversion, would go dry 6 out of every 10 years. Without this St. Mary Diversion, the Milk River would go dry 6 out of every 10 years. That is 60 percent of the time. This affects thousands of Montana families. If you have been up on the Hi-Line, if you have been on the Milk River, you will get a sense and a feel for how valuable this is. It is our lifeblood. The President might not think these projects are a priority. I certainly do. This conference report authorizes projects that will provide needed flood and storm damage protection, as well as a lot of navigation improvements and a lot of environmental restoration. There is also authority here that is so important for rebuilding and restoring the coast of Louisiana devastated by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, and authority for modernizing the lock and dam system on the Mississippi River, and authority for ecosystem restoration projects from New Jersey to Florida to Colorado--all vitally important. The 1986 comprehensive WRDA bill was enacted after a 16-year deadlock between the Congress and the executive branch. The deadlock we see today between the Congress and the President is about priorities. What are our priorities? What are America's priorities? What are the priorities of our country? The Congress has set priorities and enacted this legislation. The American people clearly value--and it goes without saying--the water resources of our country and our need to invest in them. The American people see this as a priority. Again, the conference report passed the Senate by a strong 81-to-12 vote, clearly enough votes to override a Presidential veto, and the House voted moments ago very strongly to override the President's veto 361 to 54. So let's not delay any longer. Let's get this conference report enacted with a very strong vote and override the President's veto. We already did it in the House. Let's do it in the Senate when the time comes--I think it is tomorrow--and then we can get on with developing these projects, and we can be very proud of doing something in the Congress that is very worthwhile. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague Senator Grassley, as well as Senators Alexander, Biden, Bingaman, Bond, Cantwell, Corker, Crapo, Domenici, Graham, Kerry, Levin, Lincoln, Murkowski, Roberts, Salazar, Schumer, Smith, Stabenow, Tester, and Thune in submitting a resolution designating November 2007 as National Methamphetamine Awareness Month. It is the sense of the Senate to increase awareness of methamphetamine and call upon the people of the U.S. to observe this month with appropriate methamphetamine educational programs and outreach activities. Methamphetamine is devastating families and communities across the Nation. It has been more than 1 year since enactment of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act. Methamphetamine lab seizures declined 42 percent nationwide last year, as a result of regulations on the sale of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine. These are the over the counter drugs which are often used in the production of methamphetamine. But our work is not done. Methamphetamine is still the number one law enforcement problem. The National Association of Counties found that methamphetamine is the number one illegal drug problem for 47 percent of the counties in the country. Four out of five county sheriffs report that while local methamphetamine production is down, methamphetamine abuse is not. Methamphetamine users are changing. Three-fifths of the Nation's sheriffs report increased methamphetamine use by women. Half of the Nation's sheriffs report increased use by teens. Surveys on methamphetamine abuse among teens show that many of the respondents said the drug was easy to get, and believed there was little risk in trying it. Methamphetamine is still far too readily available. As a result, local social service and health care resources are stretched thin, and more and more children are being sent to foster homes. These issues are even more apparent within tribal communities. I am very concerned that the highest rates of methamphetamine use among all ethnic groups occur within the Native American communities. Last year, Carl Venne, Crow Tribal Chairman, testified before the Finance Committee. Chairman Venne told of the grave effects of meth on the Apsaalooka Nation. He said, ``There is no entity or organization on the Crow Reservation that is exempt from the devastating destruction of Meth.'' And while the regulations under the Combat Meth Act have stifled meth production here in the United States, the production has shifted to keep up with the ever-growing demand. Most illegal methamphetamine available in the U.S. is produced in large clandestine laboratories in Mexico and smuggled into this country. We must do more to break the meth supply chain at the border. We must do more to end the demand for this devastating drug. We need to redouble our efforts and intensify methamphetamine education, prevention, and treatment. In this way, we show our resolve to bring to an end the problem of meth. Thus, I stand here today, asking my fellow colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in support of designating November 2007 National Methamphetamine Awareness Month. Conducting educational programs and outreach activities in November will give us an opportunity to talk with folks at home and focus on ways to fight methamphetamine across America. I urge everyone to join us in support of this legislation.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object once again, I ask the Senator if he would again modify his request along the lines I outlined earlier?

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I make the same request of the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. BAUCUS. Hearing the Senator's response to this long litany of requests of tax measures, which the Senator knows can in no way be passed in the Senate in this way, but also knows that many will be acted upon later this year, I must object.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Objection.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am wondering whether the Senator would amend his consent request to allow, instead, the following; namely, that when the Senate receives from the House its bill to extend the expiring tax provisions, the Senate would proceed to that bill, consider a Baucus amendment to extend the expiring tax provisions and prevent the AMT from hitting any additional taxpayers, agree to that amendment, and pass the bill, all without any intervening action or debate.