Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I have 2 minutes; is that correct?

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BAUCUS. I wish to also compliment the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island and ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the quorum calls, I be recognized for 2 minutes immediately prior to the vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, there are a lot of points one could make at this juncture. We will have time tomorrow and in the next several days. The Senate is about to vote on the motion to proceed to the bill. I understand Senators on both sides of the aisle will support it. It is important to be on the bill. There are differing views within this Chamber about how we get the reauthorization passed, but I don't think there is much disagreement that we need to do something. If we don't get to the bill, we are probably then not going to authorize the Children's Health Insurance Program, and that is going to mean a lot of kids are going to lose health insurance. So I urge Senators to vote to proceed to the bill. I understand the Senate will vote to proceed, and I think that is the right thing to do. One point I want to make, in this very brief time, is there is some illusion by some Senators as to some States providing CHIP to families who are 400 percent of poverty, that somehow the Children's Health Insurance Program is going to not only help low-income kids but help high-income kids. I understand that concern because it has been bandied about. But the fact is, no State currently covers their children at 400 percent of poverty. Only one State is thinking about it. That is New York. That State would have to get approval--either with a waiver by HHS or have their plan approved. I frankly doubt this current administration is going to agree to do that. I also point out, of all the children in the country covered by CHIP, only 3,000 come from families above 300 percent of poverty. Only 3,000 children today come from families who are above 300 percent of poverty. Frankly, that is an ideal calculation. That is less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the 6.6 million kids who are covered. So a very small fraction of the children come from families who are above 300 percent of poverty. They all live in the State of New Jersey. I might also add, those 3,000 children in New Jersey represent about 2.4 percent of the children covered by the Children's Health Insurance Program in that State--a very small percentage--and all these children pay $1,400 per year for their health care, which is a contribution of 2.2 percent of their family income. Most families pay three or four times that. So this program--as the facts will show and the record will show--by no stretch of the imagination is a program that is going to help high- income kids. In fact, it is the opposite. I urge Senators to vote to proceed to the health care bill. Cloture Motion

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following fellows and interns be granted floor privileges during the consideration of the Children's Health Insurance Bill: Amy Branger, Jennifer Donohue, Eric Willborg, Lindsay Erickson, Davie Lee, Brandon Perkins, Mary Baker, Tom Louthan, Sara Shepherd, Alex Hart, Grace Stephens, Susan Douglas, Diedra Henry-Spires, Elise Stein, Russ Ugone, George Serletis, Neil Ohlenkamp, Suzanne Payne, Jennifer Smith, Avi Salzman.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, last week when the Senate considered the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, I offered an amendment, numbered 2406, with my good friend and partner from Montana, Jon Tester. Our amendment would bar funds appropriated in the Homeland Security appropriations bill from being used to establish a national ID card. Benjamin Franklin once said, ``They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' Generations of Americans have fought for both our liberty and safety. America's Founders sought the freedom to lead their lives as they chose--freedom of religion, speech, and assembly. Freedom, above all other motives, led them to cross the ocean find a new home in America. Whether defending our liberty from British colonial governors, Nazi aggression, or today's Islamic radicals, Americans have never tired in their effort to stand up in defense of our liberty. But sometimes the threat to liberty is not as obvious as a red-coated army or a German panzer division. Sometimes, the threat is much harder to see but just as dangerous. The threat I speak of today is a national ID card. A national ID card may sound harmless to some. Indeed, a number of politicians have called for giving every citizen a national ID card. They argue that a national identification card would make it harder for terrorists to use fake identification to enter the country. But a national ID card has the potential to be abused. Such a card could become a system of identity papers, databases, status and identity checks, and Federal surveillance used to track and control individuals' movements and activities. It could, in effect, create an internal U.S. passport. Some have argued that a national ID is essential to protecting Americans from terrorism. I strongly disagree. In response to the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. This act provided a number of improvements to our Nation's driver's licenses. I support these reasonable efforts to secure our State driver's licenses from terrorists. However, a national ID card would just give Government bureaucrats another chance to meddle in the private lives of regular law-abiding Americans. Just to get on a plane, go in a Federal building, or drive down the road, you would have to have the permission of some bureaucrat in Washington. If a national ID card were established, we would be right back here on the Senate floor debating whether citizens would be required to carry them at all times or pondering what citizens are allowed to do without a national ID card. A National ID card would be a terrible loss of freedom in this country. Foreign countries with the worst civil liberties records in the world require their citizens to carry a national ID at all times. They have legal punishments for people caught without their IDs. Take Zimbabwe, for example. They passed a law in November which required all citizens to carry a national ID. Citizens face a fine or imprisonment if they refuse to carry the ID. History has taught us that national ID cards can lead to dangerous and destructive government policies. National ID cards played important roles in the genocides of both Nazi Germany and Rwanda. The apartheid-era Government of South Africa used national identification documents as internal passports to oppress the country's native population. Clearly, a national ID would be wrong for the United States. I am proud to say my home State of Montana would be the first to reject any effort to impose this sort of system. Montana's leadership has spoken, and I have heard them loud and clear; get the Federal Government out of the business of telling the States how to produce driver's licenses and ID cards. My friend, Montana's Governor Brian Schweitzer, signed a law in April that bans Montana's Department of Motor Vehicles from enforcing the requirements of the Real ID act. Republicans and Democrats alike in Montana's Legislature have voted unanimously to reject Real ID. I am proud of Montana's vigilant stand against the Federal Government's encroachment. It is wrong for politicians in Washington to burden State authorities with excessive regulations. We must allow our States to take initiatives as well. We should never try to micromanage them. They know how to do their job. Mr. President this is not a partisan issue. Organizations from the left, the ACLU, join hands with groups from the right, the NRA, and raise serious concerns about the establishment of a national ID card. I urge my colleagues to join the chorus of Americans and support this amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the following material regarding today's introduction of S. 1893, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, be included in the Record, July 26, 2007 letter from the Congressional Budget Office; and Technical Summary of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the following material regarding today's introduction of S. 1893, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, be included in the Record, July 26, 2007 letter from the Congressional Budget Office; and Technical Summary of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, ``Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.'' These essential principles for action, articulated by President Theodore Roosevelt, aptly apply to America's sanctions policy against the Burmese Government. Four years ago, Congress enacted the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 in response to the Burmese junta's brutal crackdown on democracy advocate Aung San Suu Kyi and her followers. At the time, there were few options available to the Congress to change events in Burma. Congress did what it could with the tools available at that time. Tragically, 4 years later, conditions in Burma have worsened. Suu Kyi remains under house arrest, which she has endured for most of the last two decades. The junta continues to commit gross human rights violations including extrajudicial killings, rape, and torture. Security forces continue to compel citizens into forced labor, and beat and abuse prisoners. And the junta's poor economic policies have made Burma one of the most impoverished countries in Asia. When Congress considered the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act in 2003, I expressed reservations about whether these new sanctions would have the desired effect. Too often, unilateral sanctions only worsen the plight of the oppressed people we seek to support. Too often, they fail to weaken the tyrannical governments at which they are targeted. That is why Senator Grassley and I worked together to ensure that the import sanctions would not be open-ended. We agreed to revisit the ban on an annual basis to ensure that they remain the proper policy to address America's human rights concerns with Burma. Over the last year, we have seen limited progress in our efforts to enlist the cooperation of Burma's trading partners to isolate the regime. The European Union has renewed its sanctions against Burma. Some ASEAN-member countries, which previously declined to publicly criticize the Burmese Government, are now calling for change. But none of these measures yet amounts to a unified and forceful deterrent to Burma's ruling military junta. Democracy, national reconciliation, and respect for human rights in Burma can only be achieved if we enlist more than just the moral support of other countries. We must enlist Burma's trading partners, particularly its neighbors, to take more concrete actions that put real economic and political pressure on the military generals. I urge the administration to intensify its efforts to garner international cooperation to isolate the junta. I will support renewal of the import ban on Burma, because I am hopeful that we will see greater progress in the year ahead. In renewing the import ban on Burma, I believe we will follow the right course of action: to do what we can, with the best tools available, where we are.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, I am proud to join with my good friend and colleague Senator Snowe to introduce the Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act of 2007. This legislation would invest in America's workers and firms, farmer, and communities. It would help them to compete in the global marketplace. The open trade system that has evolved over the past 50 years has created new markets for American ingenuity. It has delivered more affordable goods to American consumers. In Montana alone, trade supports nearly one in five jobs. But for some Americans, trade-related economic change has not always been smooth. In 2005, the Owens and Hurst sawmill in Eureka, Mt, closed its doors. That mill fell victim to an onslaught of unfairly dumped and subsidized Canadian lumber. Jerry Ross, a supervisor at the mill, lost the job that she had held for over a decade. Jerry's prospects for reeployment looked dim. Luckily for Jerry, she qualified for Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA. With a diligent, caring job service caseworker by her side, Jerry charted a new course in life. Jerry has been training intensively the Building Trades program at the Flathead Valley Community College in Kalispell, Mt. She is also taking accounting coursework. When she finishes her training in December, she will be qualified as a construction superintendent. She hopes to start her own business. Trade Adjustment Assistance helps tens of thousands of American workers like Jerry retrain for and fill jobs, right here at home. But the program is set to expire on September 30. It is up to this Congress to reauthorize and expand the program. I have consulted closely with workers in Montana. I have sought advice from not just Montana's Department of Labor I have also consulted with officials from Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. I have sat down with unions, businesses, economists, and other experts. Everyone agrees. TAA is a lifeline to American workers reentering an increasingly global labor market. But for all the good that Trade Adjustment Assistance does, the current program is a complicated maze of hurdles and exceptions. For instance, workers can qualify for benefits if their jobs move offshore to Canada, Mexico, or another free trade agreement partner. But they will not qualify if their jobs move to China or India. Trade-displaced manufacturing workers can qualify for TAA if they lose their jobs. But accountants or any other service providers cannot. Workers can qualify for wage insurance, but only if they give up their right to retraining. It does not have to be this way. The Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act authorizes a more fair, flexible, and relevant program. Today's TAA overlooks the 80 percent of America's workforce employed in the services sector. Tens of thousands of workers who applied for TAA last year were shut out, simply because current law covers workers who produce ``an article.'' This technicality is a holdover from a different era. That was an era when only the manufacturing sector experienced strong foreign competition. We must extend the same protections to services sector workers. Equally confounding is why workers whose firms move to Canada deserve any less protection than workers whose firms move to India. Globalization does not adhere to any trade agreement. My bill will end this discrimination, by covering any workers whose jobs move offshore, regardless of whether our nations have a trade agreement in force. Losing health care coverage can be nearly as devastating as losing a job. In 2002, Congress passed legislation to provide TAA-certified workers and certain retirees with an advanceable, refundable healthcare tax credit to cover 65 percent of their insurance premiums. But few have used this credit to replace a portion of their former employer's contribution to their health care premiums. Since folks who are out of work cannot afford to pay more for health coverage, that means most are going without. Our bill would increase the Government share of participants' premiums to 85 percent. That could give workers a real shot at keeping their healthcare coverage. Our bill also would fix the glitches that have made it difficult for workers to access this tax credit. Our bill would also ensure that States have enough funds to pay for the 2 years of training to which TAA-certified workers are entitled. Today, the law caps the amount of available funds. That leads some States either to run out of or to ration training funds. The Baucus- Snowe bill would double the cap on training funds. That would ensure that all workers, including newly eligible ones, get training. Our bill also includes a trigger to automatically raise the cap to respond to unanticipated training demands. Our bill also would make important improvements to the pilot wage insurance program that Congress created in 2002. Wage insurance helps older workers supplement lost wages when they get a new job. While older workers suffer worse wage loss, they are certainly not alone. Our bill would allow younger workers to participate in the pilot program. It also would eliminate the requirement that workers forfeit training if they opt for wage insurance. Instead, our bill would allow workers to choose what income assistance is right for them. They could choose this assistance either with training, without training, or after successfully completing training. Wage insurance should supplement, not supplant, TAA benefits. Our bill also would make important changes in the Commerce Department's TAA for firms program. This program helps workers and employers avoid painful layoffs in the first place. TAA for firms gives small businesses the technical assistance that they need to compete in the global economy. But the program runs a substantial backlog of approved but unfunded adjustment projects for participating firms. Our bill would extend coverage to services firms and triples funding to $50 million annually. Likewise, our bill would improve the Department of Agriculture's TAA for Farmers program. It would ease the overly strict eligibility criteria that have kept many farmers and fishermen legitimately affected by trade from receiving assistance. But we can do more than that. Many communities in which workers, firms, or farmers have been certified for TAA are struggling to redefine their place in the global market. This bill would create a new TAA for Communities program to help communities uniquely challenged by trade to plan for the future and to access grant funding to implement that future. Jerry Ross faced long odds when she lost her job. But because of Trade Adjustment Assistance, she has a bright career. ahead of her. Jerry believes in TAA. She traveled all the way to Washington, DC to urge its renewal and improvement at a Finance Committee hearing in June. I look forward to working with my Colleagues on the Finance Committee and in this chamber to ensure that this Congress does not disappoint Jerry and the tens of thousands of American workers just like her.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, I am proud to join with my good friend and colleague Senator Snowe to introduce the Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act of 2007. This legislation would invest in America's workers and firms, farmer, and communities. It would help them to compete in the global marketplace. The open trade system that has evolved over the past 50 years has created new markets for American ingenuity. It has delivered more affordable goods to American consumers. In Montana alone, trade supports nearly one in five jobs. But for some Americans, trade-related economic change has not always been smooth. In 2005, the Owens and Hurst sawmill in Eureka, Mt, closed its doors. That mill fell victim to an onslaught of unfairly dumped and subsidized Canadian lumber. Jerry Ross, a supervisor at the mill, lost the job that she had held for over a decade. Jerry's prospects for reeployment looked dim. Luckily for Jerry, she qualified for Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA. With a diligent, caring job service caseworker by her side, Jerry charted a new course in life. Jerry has been training intensively the Building Trades program at the Flathead Valley Community College in Kalispell, Mt. She is also taking accounting coursework. When she finishes her training in December, she will be qualified as a construction superintendent. She hopes to start her own business. Trade Adjustment Assistance helps tens of thousands of American workers like Jerry retrain for and fill jobs, right here at home. But the program is set to expire on September 30. It is up to this Congress to reauthorize and expand the program. I have consulted closely with workers in Montana. I have sought advice from not just Montana's Department of Labor I have also consulted with officials from Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. I have sat down with unions, businesses, economists, and other experts. Everyone agrees. TAA is a lifeline to American workers reentering an increasingly global labor market. But for all the good that Trade Adjustment Assistance does, the current program is a complicated maze of hurdles and exceptions. For instance, workers can qualify for benefits if their jobs move offshore to Canada, Mexico, or another free trade agreement partner. But they will not qualify if their jobs move to China or India. Trade-displaced manufacturing workers can qualify for TAA if they lose their jobs. But accountants or any other service providers cannot. Workers can qualify for wage insurance, but only if they give up their right to retraining. It does not have to be this way. The Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act authorizes a more fair, flexible, and relevant program. Today's TAA overlooks the 80 percent of America's workforce employed in the services sector. Tens of thousands of workers who applied for TAA last year were shut out, simply because current law covers workers who produce ``an article.'' This technicality is a holdover from a different era. That was an era when only the manufacturing sector experienced strong foreign competition. We must extend the same protections to services sector workers. Equally confounding is why workers whose firms move to Canada deserve any less protection than workers whose firms move to India. Globalization does not adhere to any trade agreement. My bill will end this discrimination, by covering any workers whose jobs move offshore, regardless of whether our nations have a trade agreement in force. Losing health care coverage can be nearly as devastating as losing a job. In 2002, Congress passed legislation to provide TAA-certified workers and certain retirees with an advanceable, refundable healthcare tax credit to cover 65 percent of their insurance premiums. But few have used this credit to replace a portion of their former employer's contribution to their health care premiums. Since folks who are out of work cannot afford to pay more for health coverage, that means most are going without. Our bill would increase the Government share of participants' premiums to 85 percent. That could give workers a real shot at keeping their healthcare coverage. Our bill also would fix the glitches that have made it difficult for workers to access this tax credit. Our bill would also ensure that States have enough funds to pay for the 2 years of training to which TAA-certified workers are entitled. Today, the law caps the amount of available funds. That leads some States either to run out of or to ration training funds. The Baucus- Snowe bill would double the cap on training funds. That would ensure that all workers, including newly eligible ones, get training. Our bill also includes a trigger to automatically raise the cap to respond to unanticipated training demands. Our bill also would make important improvements to the pilot wage insurance program that Congress created in 2002. Wage insurance helps older workers supplement lost wages when they get a new job. While older workers suffer worse wage loss, they are certainly not alone. Our bill would allow younger workers to participate in the pilot program. It also would eliminate the requirement that workers forfeit training if they opt for wage insurance. Instead, our bill would allow workers to choose what income assistance is right for them. They could choose this assistance either with training, without training, or after successfully completing training. Wage insurance should supplement, not supplant, TAA benefits. Our bill also would make important changes in the Commerce Department's TAA for firms program. This program helps workers and employers avoid painful layoffs in the first place. TAA for firms gives small businesses the technical assistance that they need to compete in the global economy. But the program runs a substantial backlog of approved but unfunded adjustment projects for participating firms. Our bill would extend coverage to services firms and triples funding to $50 million annually. Likewise, our bill would improve the Department of Agriculture's TAA for Farmers program. It would ease the overly strict eligibility criteria that have kept many farmers and fishermen legitimately affected by trade from receiving assistance. But we can do more than that. Many communities in which workers, firms, or farmers have been certified for TAA are struggling to redefine their place in the global market. This bill would create a new TAA for Communities program to help communities uniquely challenged by trade to plan for the future and to access grant funding to implement that future. Jerry Ross faced long odds when she lost her job. But because of Trade Adjustment Assistance, she has a bright career. ahead of her. Jerry believes in TAA. She traveled all the way to Washington, DC to urge its renewal and improvement at a Finance Committee hearing in June. I look forward to working with my Colleagues on the Finance Committee and in this chamber to ensure that this Congress does not disappoint Jerry and the tens of thousands of American workers just like her.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the American adventurer, war hero, and 26th President of the United States Teddy Roosevelt once said, ``Far away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.'' And there is no work worth doing more than making sure our Nation's trucking industry runs smooth, and nobody works harder than my good friend Ray Kuntz. As a fellow Montanan, Ray knows the value of hard work and has always been willing to roll up his sleeves and put in a full day. As the CEO of Watkins & Shepard Trucking, which is based in my hometown of Helena, Ray has helped transform a small business into a thriving enterprise. With more than 700 trucks and drivers and 1,000 employees, Watkins & Shepard has made their mark on the trucking industry. I remember attending the Watkins & Shepard driving school, and I can say firsthand that it was top notch. Now, Ray will undertake a new challenge, taking the reins of the American Trucking Association as the chairman. Ray is no stranger to the ATA, and he is no stranger to success. As vice-chairman of the ATA, Ray helped to revolutionize the trucking industry. Combining cutting- edge technology and a passion for trucking, Ray helped to launch GetTrucking.com. This innovative Web site used humor, timely information, and eye-grabbing graphics to help recruit new drivers and keep trucking the vanguard of America's transportation industry. As chairman, Ray will continue to use his drive, his creativity, and his passion to lead the ATA boldly into the 21st century. With his chairmanship, Ray has made the working folks the hallmark of his term. For those of us who know him, this is no surprise. Ray has always remembered his roots and the hard-working men and women he has served along the way. With Ray at the helm, the ATA is on the path to an even more successful future as the voice of the men and women who are either behind the wheel, or behind the scenes, of the trucking industry.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, the Senate has taken an important step in our relationship with Latin America. Following House action last night, the Senate unanimously approved an 8-month extension of the Andean Trade Preference Act, ATPA. Our action today prevents these key trade preferences from expiring abruptly this weekend. More importantly, it underscores the value that United States places on strong economic engagement with our partners in the Andean region. The Andean Trade Preference Act provides duty-free access to certain products from Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia. These preferences ensure that hundreds of thousands of workers in these countries can find legal and meaningful employment in their own countries--workers who might otherwise find jobs in coca fields or in other illicit industries. By doing so, the Andean trade preferences enable the United States to continue to promote economic and political stability in a key region of Latin America. ATPA and other preference programs are not a one-way street. I hear repeatedly from American businesses and consumers how these preference programs benefit the United States. Specifically, ATPA provides numerous U.S. companies with a source of high-quality, duty-free inputs for their products. American companies then pass these benefits on to American consumers in the form of lower costs and greater product diversity. While I welcome this extension, I do not wish to minimize legitimate concerns that some of my colleagues have about the program, especially those relating to protection of U.S. investment. ATPA provides a framework for addressing these concerns and finding the solutions. To benefit from these preferences, beneficiary countries must protect foreign investment. They must afford worker rights. They must uphold key intellectual property rights. And they must meet counternarcotics requirements. Because of these provisions, ATPA is one of the best diplomatic tools America has in Latin America. Today we took an important step in passing an 8-month extension of ATPA. But 8 months is not a lasting solution. Rather, it is a stepping stone toward a possible longer term extension for ATPA beneficiaries, as circumstances warrant. Eight months from now, some countries may still need these preferences; others may not. During the time, I will closely monitor whether ATPA beneficiary countries live up to their end of the bargain and abide by the requirements of the program. If they do, I will work hard to secure a longer extension. The United States and the Andean region will be better for it.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is a very interesting series of statements we have heard in the last 15 minutes, half hour, statements basically trying to lead Americans to believe that this Finance Committee tax package, as well as the provisions of the tax package to pay for incentives so we can wean ourselves away from OPEC, away from all these countries, is going to result somehow in some cataclysmic event; namely, gasoline prices are going to go up, according to statements we have heard. We have also heard that we are going to reduce domestic exploration and development of American oil companies; we are putting ourselves in the hands of foreign countries. The fact is, the exact opposite is the case. These statements are amazing. It is good political rhetoric, but it has nothing to do with the facts. First, it is more important that people understand that the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, basically delegates to the Secretary of Energy whether $30 billion worth of tax provisions will be enacted. I am astounded that anybody in the Senate wants to delegate that decision to the Secretary of Energy instead of the U.S. Congress deciding whether the tax needs to be imposed. The Kyl amendment basically says that unless the Energy Secretary can determine that the effect of this will not increase the price of gasoline at the pump, that he, the Energy Secretary, or she, the Energy Secretary--whoever the Energy Secretary is--will automatically be forced to rescind the pay-fors in this bill. That is astounding. It is basically delegating to the Energy Secretary a policy which should be made by the Congress, and that is a huge dereliction of responsibility. I am appalled that anybody would dare suggest it. But that is a fact. Second, if we look at the whole bill, the Finance Committee package in the Energy bill and also the Kyl amendment, several things are striking. The first is the major underlying Finance Committee bill is designed to accomplish the objective that the Senator from Idaho is complaining about. The Senator from Idaho is complaining that this amendment transfers power to Venezuela or to Saudi Arabia, other countries. The whole point of this bill is the exact opposite. It is to wean ourselves away from OPEC, wean ourselves away from those countries, so that we Americans are in a better position to determine our own destiny, in a better position to get more energy production here in America. How do we do that? The committee bill does that through all kinds of incentives. It reduces taxes in lots of different ways for alternative energy, renewable energy, cellulosic development, encouraging more American clean coal technology so we can tap into our vast reserves of coal. It has lots of ways we could help America be more self-sufficient and wean ourselves away from these very high gasoline prices we are forced to pay partly because OPEC is forcing us to pay those prices; the truth is, partly because the major oil companies are charging whatever the market will bear. That is why they are charging such high prices to the American consumer. What evidence do I have of that? It is very simple and direct. I was stunned because of the candor of the CEO of ExxonMobil when he made this statement. This was last year at a Judiciary Committee hearing. I was not there; I was watching on C-SPAN. At that hearing, the exchange was essentially between the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, and the CEO of Exxon. I think Senator Kohl asked the question. This was an open hearing. He said: Sir, why are gasoline prices so high now? The answer: Well, Exxon has to pay more because OPEC is charging us more. So we to have pay more, and we transfer those price increases down to the American consumer. The Senator from Wisconsin asked the head of ExxonMobil: Explain this to me, please. At the same time, your profits have exploded. They have gone up about $35 billion this year. Your profits have expanded. Senator Kohl said: I am a businessman. Ordinarily, if my costs go up, my profits go down. Please explain to me why you would say your costs are going up because OPEC is charging you more and yet your profits are going way up. Why? His answer was very illustrative of the point here. He said, in all candor: Senator, my responsibility is not to the American consumer; my responsibility is to my stockholders. I will charge whatever the market will bear because I have a duty to protect my stockholders and get whatever I can for my stockholders. I am going to charge whatever I can. That is why profits are so high, because Americans can't put milk in their car or their truck. They can't put in water. They have to put in diesel fuel or gasoline. Americans are stuck. The majors are passing on through their distribution system these very high gasoline prices because they can get away with it and because it fattens profits and because they are beholden to stockholders, not the American consumers. What about these provisions which the Senator from Arizona wants to strike. There are three of them. It is very simple, and there is a reason why they are there and why they will not have the disastrous effect the Senator from Arizona claims. The first one is to rescind a tax break we gave to the five major oil companies back in 2004. It is called section 199. We gave that tax break, frankly, to all American domestic manufacturers, including the oil companies. It was as a response to a WTO ruling a year or two earlier which said our American tax laws-- which gave incentives for American products to be exported--were WTO illegal. So we came up with a backup plan. The backup plan was basically section 199 in the code, enacted in the 2004 Jobs Act, which says, OK, we will give an extra little break to domestic production in the United States. If they export the products, fine; if they do not, that is fine. We will still give them a break. That is what that is. What has happened to domestic oil production in the United States since that was enacted in 2004? Well, one would think it probably increased a little bit because the major oil companies get a little tax break. The fact is, the exact opposite has happened. Let me quote a couple statistics. In 2004, when that provision was put in effect, domestic production was about 170 million barrels a month. It was 170 million barrels a month in 2004. Well, you would think it would go up because of that tax break for domestic production. Oh, no, that is not what happened. It actually went down. It is down to about 160 million barrels. Look at the price of oil. Back in 2004, the price of oil was $40 a barrel. Now it is about $65 a barrel. Well, gee, you would think--that is more money in the oil companies' coffers--they would want to use that for more exploration, more development. No. Again, there is less domestic production, even with the price of oil so high over that period of time and even though they have had a tax break. I might add, too, the price of gasoline at the pump back then was about $2 a gallon. Today, it is above $3 a gallon. So that did not help. So, gee, we thought: We will take that away. It did not help, so we will take it away. So, therefore, it seems to me it is not going to cause an increase in the price of gasoline at the pump. I might say, the statistics cited by the Senator from Arizona are based on the Heritage Foundation. I am not going to get into the question of who financed that study--I have an idea who financed that study; and, therefore, it drove the results they would like to get--but that is the same organization that said Iraqi oil is going to pay for Iraq reconstruction too. They were dead wrong then, and they are dead wrong now. They are an organization which, frankly, I think is not the most objective, independent organization in the world. That is the first one. That is why we made that first change. The second provision in the Finance Committee bill the Senator's amendment wants to strike is a loophole closer. We are trying to close a loophole. The Joint Committee on Taxation said--that is a bipartisan organization, the Joint Committee on Taxation, which serves both the House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats--their independent study shows there is a big loophole the major oil companies take with respect to foreign tax breaks in this area; that is, ordinarily a company gets to reduce its income taxes in the amount of the foreign taxes that company pays to a foreign country. Now, the law is different between exploration costs and distribution downstream costs. The companies game the system. They offset one against the other. Joint Tax saw this big loophole. Let's close it. That is the second provision. Also, I do not see how anybody could argue against that. It is a big loophole closer. It makes the Tax Code more fair. Then we get to the third provision. This is the so-called confiscatory excise tax on the oil produced in the Gulf of Mexico. Let's be honest. First of all, the President of the United States, himself, believes there is insufficient revenue paid to Uncle Sam on these OCS leases. The best evidence: The President of the United States, himself, has enacted a 6\2/3\-percent royalty on all new leases in the gulf. He thinks they are not paying enough. He has increased the current royalty--it was 12 percent. The bill has a 13-percent severance tax. The President, himself, has enacted a whole new higher royalty provision on new leases in the gulf. He thinks they are undertaxed. Right now it is about a 12-percent royalty. This provision in our Finance Committee bill says a 13-percent severance tax. Clearly, Congress has the power to enact a tax. The royalties paid by any company are credited against the 13 percent, and so it is a net lower than what the President thinks the amount should be in revenue paid by the oil and gas companies in the gulf. I might also say the General Accounting Office has done a study of how much America taxes oil and gas compared with how other countries tax oil and gas. What is the result of the GAO study? The result of the GAO study is we Americans basically tax oil and gas less than other jurisdictions around the world--or other States. The State of Alaska is taxing more. Other countries tax more now. We Americans are pretty easy and soft compared to other countries on how much we tax oil and gas revenues. So this argument that somehow, oh, my gosh, America is going to tax oil and gas companies with these provisions--that it is confiscatory; they are going to go overseas--it is just nonsense. It is just total nonsense because, already, oil and gas revenue in the United States is not taxed as much as it is in other jurisdictions. It seems to me, therefore, it is not unfair to enact this provision. The main point is if the Kyl amendment passes, then the Finance Committee tax title of this bill is dead because we are not paying for it, effectively. That is because the Energy Secretary, under the Kyl amendment, probably would rule that maybe prices might go up at the pump, given the politics of it all, and that means we do not have a bill anymore. Therefore, I urge Senators to say: OK, let's do what is right. Let's start to wean ourselves from OPEC. Let's start to give some incentives to American domestic producers of alternative fuels, renewable fuels, and have more conservation measures to help America again take control of our own destiny. This is not a perfect bill. Nothing is perfect. But it is a good bill. It is a very good bill. It helps put America back on track, helps America turn the corner toward more energy independence, and enhances our national security so we are less reliant upon OPEC, less reliant upon those countries to which some Senators say this bill gives a break. It does not. This bill does the exact opposite. It helps America become America again. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will take the remaining 2 minutes. This whole debate boils down to something pretty simple and basic; that is, do we as Americans want to begin to become more self-sufficient in our energy production? Do we want to be less reliant on OPEC? Do we want to give incentives to new clean energy industries to develop in America-- not just renewables and alternatives but also clean coal technologies and other ways to help America be more self-sufficient? Congress, for many years, has provided some very significant tax incentives to the oil and gas industry to help America be strong, to make sure we as Americans have a strong industrial base and a strong energy base to fuel our industries. That was probably the right thing to do over the years from 1926, and the various provisions that have helped America. I think the time has come for us to give incentives to other industries, alternative energy, renewable fuels, clean coal technologies, cellulosic, and so forth--the same kinds of incentives that the oil and gas industry have enjoyed for decades and decades. We are not taking away these incentives from the oil and gas industry at all. We are just saying the time has come for us to give incentives to make America more self-sufficient in the production of energy. This bill helps accomplish that result, and the way we do that is very fair and balanced. It will not have the horrible results that are claimed here. I urge our colleagues to begin to take--we will still have huge breaks for the oil and gas, but we give help on the margin to new independent energy sources in America.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter to Senator Bingaman regarding a study by professors of law John Leshy and Brian Gray.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I raise a pay-go point of order that the pending Kyl amendment would worsen the deficit, in violation of section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 2 minutes 10 seconds to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes and--how many seconds?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I very much thank the chairman of the Energy Committee who I think has put together a very good energy bill. I thank him very much for his instructive comments here. They are very helpful. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce legislation with Senator Mike Crapo, House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, and Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson to help open a promising market to American exports. That market is Cuba. For too long, we have maintained ideologically driven restrictions that have undermined our export competitiveness in a market 90 miles away from us. Just beyond our shoreline, our trading partners--especially Canada and China--are making multi billion-dollar investments in a Cuban economy that is growing at a rate of 7 to 12 percent per year. But the United States just stands by while these and other countries capitalize on opportunities in our own backyard. Our economic policy toward Cuba simply is not working. This bill changes that. The greatest opportunities exist in Cuba's agriculture sector. When Congress passed legislation allowing food and medicine sales to Cuba in 2000, some people said Cuba would never buy. Fidel Castro himself predicted that Cuba would buy ``not one grain'' from the United States. But Mr. Castro was wrong. Agricultural sales happened. In 2004 alone, Cubans bought more than $375 million in American agricultural products. And, today, nearly every state in the union wants to get into the largest agriculture market in the Caribbean. I have worked tirelessly to market Montana's high quality agriculture products, and it has paid off. In 2003, I inked a $10 million deal with Cuba. After we completed that deal, I went back to Havana and signed another deal--for $15 million. We have sent Montana wheat, beans and peas to Cuba, and that is just the beginning. But it has not been easy. In 2005, the Treasury Department issued a rule to undermine the will of Congress. In landmark legislation, Congress in 2000 facilitated agriculture exports to Cuba by authorizing the use of cash basis sales. But the Treasury rule made such transactions impossible. Instead, sellers had to resort to foreign letters of credit, which are time-consuming, complicated, and expensive, especially for smaller exporters. The Treasury rule stunted what had been meteoric growth in American agriculture exports to Cuba. This rule flies in the face of the law, and it will not stand. Today's bill overturns the Treasury rule. It clarifies that not only do we intend to let these cash basis sales go forward, we mean to expand and promote them. This bill also ensures that exporters and commodity groups looking to get into the Cuban market get help from the Department of Agriculture. And it would require our Agriculture Department to promote American agricultural exports for Cuba. Increased agriculture sales will allow Cubans to become familiar with more and more American branded food products. But a little-known provision of U.S. law--known as section 211--invites Cuba to withhold trademark protection from these and other American food exports. Today's bill also addresses that problem. Section 211 bars U.S. courts from hearing claims of foreign nationals to trademarks similar to or associated with expropriated properties. It also forbids the United States from allowing foreign nationals to register or renew such trademark rights. In other words, it denies trademark protection to Cuban assets. If we are not going to recognize Cuban brands, why should Cuba, in the future, recognize American brands? The World Trade Organization has already struck down section 211 as inconsistent with U.S. international trade obligations. It is time for this Congress to do the same. My bill repeals this wrong-headed and WTO-inconsistent provision. It ensures the continued security of thousands of American-owned trademarks already registered in Cuba. I am a big proponent of getting American food products into Cuba. But I also fundamentally believe that we should never use food and medicine as a weapon against a people, no matter what we think of their government. Many of my colleagues agree with me on this. This is why Congress, in the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act, authorized medicine and medical supplies sales to Cuba. But, at that time, we didn't get it quite right. We passed a law with good intent but loaded it up with so many restrictions that we have made medical sales to Cuba more difficult than medical sales to Iran or North Korea. My bill will correct this lopsided and inhumane policy. It will allow Cubans access to our medicines and medical products--which are the best money can buy--on the same terms that we offer to other regimes. There is no sound reason to deny our products to our Cuban neighbors but allow such sales to Iran and North Korea. I have taken Montana farmers and ranchers to Cuba to explore export opportunities. But such opportunities are rare because our government, with limited exceptions, does not permit travel to Cuba. And those exceptions are so riddled with red tape as to discourage applicants from making use of them. Many Americans are ready and willing to travel to Cuba, and not just to make agriculture sales. Religious organizations have deep roots on the island--since before the Castro government. They are a lifeline, bringing hope, help, and brotherhood to their counterparts in Cuba. American academics and professionals engage in thoughtful exchanges of research and ideas. American students visit with Cuban students, and they learn lessons a teacher cannot imbue. Nearly everyone in Cuba has a dear friend or relative living in the United States. Tens of thousands of Cubans who found their way to America save their hard earned dollars on frequent trips home, their bags packed with medicine, vitamins, and clothing. Rather than encourage these meaningful contacts between Cubans and Americans, our government stifles our interaction. Rather than unite the Cuban family, our government seeks to divide it further. Americans do not benefit from this policy. The Cuban people do not benefit from this policy. Only those who seek to keep Americans and Cubans apart benefit from our misguided policy of isolation. It is time to reach out to the Cuban people. It is time to restore Americans' fundamental right to travel anywhere they want. It is time to lift the travel ban. I am proud of our bill. It spells out the right policy during this fundamental transition in Cuba. It helps farmers and ranchers in Montana and elsewhere seek opportunities in a nearby market. And it affords our citizens the opportunity to spread American generosity, assistance, and values to Cuba. I look forward to working with Senator Crapo, Chairman Rangel, Congresswoman Emerson, and others to put our trade relationship with Cuba on the right path.