Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend and colleague, Senator Grassley, in introducing legislation to preserve the corporate tax base. The Federal Government taxes corporations. The tax law treats corporations as economic entities, and taxes them separately from the corporation's shareholders. And the tax law treats partnerships differently from corporations. Recently, some private equity and hedge fund entities have sought to go public without paying a corporate tax. The bill that we introduce today would treat all publicly traded partnerships that directly or indirectly receive income from providing investment advisory or asset management services as corporations. The tax law ought to treat as corporations entities that function as corporations. Congress enacted the publicly traded partnership rules in 1987 to preserve the corporate tax base. Congress was concerned that publicly traded partnerships might be able to enjoy the privilege of going public like a corporation without the corporate toll charge. The House committee report stated: These changes [referring to the corporate minimum tax included in the 1986 Act] reflect an intent to preserve the corporate level tax. The committee is concerned that the intent of these changes is being circumvented by the growth of publicly traded partnerships that are taking advantage of an unintended opportunity for disincorporation and elective integration of the corporate and shareholder levels of tax. Congress carved out an exception for those partnerships that receive 90 percent or more of their income from passive income. Passive income includes dividends, rents, royalties, interest, and the sale of capital gains. But Congress generally treated publicly traded partnerships that derive income from active businesses as corporations. To emphasize that point, in 1987, the House committee report stated: In general, the purpose of distinguishing between passive- type income and other income is to distinguish those partnerships that are engaged in activities commonly considered as essentially no more than investments, and those activities more typically conducted in corporate form that are in the nature of active business activities. This year, some private equity and hedge fund management firms are attempting to qualify for partnership tax treatment. They seek to do so even though they derive virtually all of their income from providing asset management and financial advisory services. These management firms argue that they are able to achieve this result by claiming that all of their income from asset management and investment advisory services is passive. But objective observers would say that this income actually arises from active businesses. Congress's intent in 1987 was to treat such publicly traded partnerships as corporations. In the legislation that we introduce today, we seek to ensure that Congress's original intent is carried out. This legislation is also important to ensure that some corporations are not disadvantaged because they conduct business in the corporate form and pay taxes as a corporation. Asset management service and investment advisory partnerships provide the same types of active business services as their corporate competitors. Our tax system functions best when it is fair. The tax law ought to treat similarly situated taxpayers the same. Thus, these publicly traded partnerships should be taxed as corporations. The legislation that we introduce today would clarify the purpose of the publicly traded partnership rules. Our bill would deny the ability of an active financial advisory and asset management business to go public and avoid a corporate level tax on a significant amount of its income. Senator Grassley and I have asked the staff of the Treasury Department for their views on these transactions, how they plan to address this issue, and whether they think additional statutory changes are necessary to clarify the intent of the publicly traded partnership rules. If a statutory change is needed, then this legislation will accomplish that change. If a change is not needed, then this legislation does not alter the ability of Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service to issue guidance and enforce congressional intent. I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Grassley and me to protect the original intent of Congress, to protect the tax base, and to treat similarly situated entities similarly. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and an explanation and reasons for change be printed in the Record. There being no ojection, the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend and colleague, Senator Grassley, in introducing legislation to preserve the corporate tax base. The Federal Government taxes corporations. The tax law treats corporations as economic entities, and taxes them separately from the corporation's shareholders. And the tax law treats partnerships differently from corporations. Recently, some private equity and hedge fund entities have sought to go public without paying a corporate tax. The bill that we introduce today would treat all publicly traded partnerships that directly or indirectly receive income from providing investment advisory or asset management services as corporations. The tax law ought to treat as corporations entities that function as corporations. Congress enacted the publicly traded partnership rules in 1987 to preserve the corporate tax base. Congress was concerned that publicly traded partnerships might be able to enjoy the privilege of going public like a corporation without the corporate toll charge. The House committee report stated: These changes [referring to the corporate minimum tax included in the 1986 Act] reflect an intent to preserve the corporate level tax. The committee is concerned that the intent of these changes is being circumvented by the growth of publicly traded partnerships that are taking advantage of an unintended opportunity for disincorporation and elective integration of the corporate and shareholder levels of tax. Congress carved out an exception for those partnerships that receive 90 percent or more of their income from passive income. Passive income includes dividends, rents, royalties, interest, and the sale of capital gains. But Congress generally treated publicly traded partnerships that derive income from active businesses as corporations. To emphasize that point, in 1987, the House committee report stated: In general, the purpose of distinguishing between passive- type income and other income is to distinguish those partnerships that are engaged in activities commonly considered as essentially no more than investments, and those activities more typically conducted in corporate form that are in the nature of active business activities. This year, some private equity and hedge fund management firms are attempting to qualify for partnership tax treatment. They seek to do so even though they derive virtually all of their income from providing asset management and financial advisory services. These management firms argue that they are able to achieve this result by claiming that all of their income from asset management and investment advisory services is passive. But objective observers would say that this income actually arises from active businesses. Congress's intent in 1987 was to treat such publicly traded partnerships as corporations. In the legislation that we introduce today, we seek to ensure that Congress's original intent is carried out. This legislation is also important to ensure that some corporations are not disadvantaged because they conduct business in the corporate form and pay taxes as a corporation. Asset management service and investment advisory partnerships provide the same types of active business services as their corporate competitors. Our tax system functions best when it is fair. The tax law ought to treat similarly situated taxpayers the same. Thus, these publicly traded partnerships should be taxed as corporations. The legislation that we introduce today would clarify the purpose of the publicly traded partnership rules. Our bill would deny the ability of an active financial advisory and asset management business to go public and avoid a corporate level tax on a significant amount of its income. Senator Grassley and I have asked the staff of the Treasury Department for their views on these transactions, how they plan to address this issue, and whether they think additional statutory changes are necessary to clarify the intent of the publicly traded partnership rules. If a statutory change is needed, then this legislation will accomplish that change. If a change is not needed, then this legislation does not alter the ability of Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service to issue guidance and enforce congressional intent. I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Grassley and me to protect the original intent of Congress, to protect the tax base, and to treat similarly situated entities similarly. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and an explanation and reasons for change be printed in the Record. There being no ojection, the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this week, we celebrate Flag Day, and in a few weeks we will celebrate the Fourth of July. We ask a lot from our men and women in the armed services, and their sacrifices are essential to protecting our freedom here at home. One way to support them is to make the Tax Code a little friendlier to the troops. That is why I am introducing the Defenders of Freedom Tax Relief Act of 2007. This bill would extend the tax rules favoring the military that expire in 2007 and 2008. It would also eliminate roadblocks in the current tax laws that present difficulties for veterans and servicemembers. Our troops should fight against our Nation's enemies, not our Nation's Tax Code. Family members of fallen soldiers killed in the line of duty receive a death benefit of $100,000. But the Tax Code restricts the survivors from contributing this benefit into a tax-favored retirement account. My bill would exempt this benefit from the current restrictions on contribution amounts and income limitations. That way, the family members of fallen soldiers could take advantage of tax- favored Roth IRA accounts. Lower ranking, lower income soldiers do most of the heavy lifting in combat situations. Under the current Tax Code, their income is not counted in computing the earned income tax credit, or EITC. The EITC is a beneficial tax provision available to working Americans. It makes no sense to deny it to our troops. My bill would count combat duty income for EITC purposes, and it would make this change to the Tax Code permanent. My bill would also eliminate the confusion that surrounds State gifts to servicemembers. Military members should not be caught in the crossfire of competing Tax Code interpretations. Another hazard facing our troops in the Tax Code is the statute of limitations for filing a tax refund. Most Veterans' Administration disability claims filed by veterans are quickly resolved. But thousands of disability awards are delayed due to lost paperwork or the appeals of rejected claims. Once a disabled veteran finally gets a favorable award, the good news is that the disability award is tax-free. But many of these disabled veterans get ambushed by a statute that bars them from filing a tax refund claim. My bill would give disabled veterans in this situation an extra year to claim their tax refunds. Our men and women in uniform provide an invaluable service to our country. They, along with their families, make sacrifices and live a demanding lifestyle. The Tax Code should not add to their hardships as they move from assignment to assignment around the globe. Protecting American interests around the world requires most of our troops to move a number of times during their career. Restricting favorable mortgage bond financing to only first-time homebuyers does not make much sense for them. Therefore, my bill would eliminate this restriction for veterans who served in the active military. The bill would make permanent a provision that allows intelligence community employees to make use of the exclusion of gain on the sale of their home when they are assigned overseas or 50 miles away from their home. A soldier's rucksack is heavy enough as it is without piling tax paperwork on top of it. My bill would help reduce paperwork. My bill would treat differential pay as wages. This would make it easer for employers to contribute to a reservist's retirement plans. And it would eliminate the reservist's need to make estimated tax payments. My bill would also make permanent certain taxpayer information reporting rules, so that the Social Security Administration and the Veterans' Administration could facilitate the administration of veteran needs-based pension and compensation programs. A further roadblock for military service men and women is the 10- percent penalty triggered for early withdrawal from a qualified retirement plan. If reservists are called to active duty, the last thing that they should have to worry about is their 401(k) plan or IRA account. This provision would permit penalty-free early withdrawal. And it would give reservists 2 years from the time that they stop active duty to roll over their IRAs or 401(k) plans. Small business employers are being asked to make sacrifices here at home. My bill would help. Mobilization of Reserve personnel creates unexpected employee absences. This hits small businesses especially hard. Some employers voluntarily take on the added burden of eliminating any pay gap experienced by their reservist-employees. These employers pay the difference between the civilian salary and the military pay. In recognition of their patriotism, my bill would provide small businesses with fewer than 50 employees a tax credit of 20 percent of the differential pay, up to $20,000, for those small businesses that make differential payments to reservists called up to active duty. This bill is fully paid for with a change in the Tax Code that makes sure that anyone relinquishing their U.S. citizenship is still on the hook to pay their fair share of U.S. taxes. We owe the Americans fighting in our Armed Forces an enormous debt of gratitude. These important tax reforms are one small way of saluting them for all that they do. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this week, we celebrate Flag Day, and in a few weeks we will celebrate the Fourth of July. We ask a lot from our men and women in the armed services, and their sacrifices are essential to protecting our freedom here at home. One way to support them is to make the Tax Code a little friendlier to the troops. That is why I am introducing the Defenders of Freedom Tax Relief Act of 2007. This bill would extend the tax rules favoring the military that expire in 2007 and 2008. It would also eliminate roadblocks in the current tax laws that present difficulties for veterans and servicemembers. Our troops should fight against our Nation's enemies, not our Nation's Tax Code. Family members of fallen soldiers killed in the line of duty receive a death benefit of $100,000. But the Tax Code restricts the survivors from contributing this benefit into a tax-favored retirement account. My bill would exempt this benefit from the current restrictions on contribution amounts and income limitations. That way, the family members of fallen soldiers could take advantage of tax- favored Roth IRA accounts. Lower ranking, lower income soldiers do most of the heavy lifting in combat situations. Under the current Tax Code, their income is not counted in computing the earned income tax credit, or EITC. The EITC is a beneficial tax provision available to working Americans. It makes no sense to deny it to our troops. My bill would count combat duty income for EITC purposes, and it would make this change to the Tax Code permanent. My bill would also eliminate the confusion that surrounds State gifts to servicemembers. Military members should not be caught in the crossfire of competing Tax Code interpretations. Another hazard facing our troops in the Tax Code is the statute of limitations for filing a tax refund. Most Veterans' Administration disability claims filed by veterans are quickly resolved. But thousands of disability awards are delayed due to lost paperwork or the appeals of rejected claims. Once a disabled veteran finally gets a favorable award, the good news is that the disability award is tax-free. But many of these disabled veterans get ambushed by a statute that bars them from filing a tax refund claim. My bill would give disabled veterans in this situation an extra year to claim their tax refunds. Our men and women in uniform provide an invaluable service to our country. They, along with their families, make sacrifices and live a demanding lifestyle. The Tax Code should not add to their hardships as they move from assignment to assignment around the globe. Protecting American interests around the world requires most of our troops to move a number of times during their career. Restricting favorable mortgage bond financing to only first-time homebuyers does not make much sense for them. Therefore, my bill would eliminate this restriction for veterans who served in the active military. The bill would make permanent a provision that allows intelligence community employees to make use of the exclusion of gain on the sale of their home when they are assigned overseas or 50 miles away from their home. A soldier's rucksack is heavy enough as it is without piling tax paperwork on top of it. My bill would help reduce paperwork. My bill would treat differential pay as wages. This would make it easer for employers to contribute to a reservist's retirement plans. And it would eliminate the reservist's need to make estimated tax payments. My bill would also make permanent certain taxpayer information reporting rules, so that the Social Security Administration and the Veterans' Administration could facilitate the administration of veteran needs-based pension and compensation programs. A further roadblock for military service men and women is the 10- percent penalty triggered for early withdrawal from a qualified retirement plan. If reservists are called to active duty, the last thing that they should have to worry about is their 401(k) plan or IRA account. This provision would permit penalty-free early withdrawal. And it would give reservists 2 years from the time that they stop active duty to roll over their IRAs or 401(k) plans. Small business employers are being asked to make sacrifices here at home. My bill would help. Mobilization of Reserve personnel creates unexpected employee absences. This hits small businesses especially hard. Some employers voluntarily take on the added burden of eliminating any pay gap experienced by their reservist-employees. These employers pay the difference between the civilian salary and the military pay. In recognition of their patriotism, my bill would provide small businesses with fewer than 50 employees a tax credit of 20 percent of the differential pay, up to $20,000, for those small businesses that make differential payments to reservists called up to active duty. This bill is fully paid for with a change in the Tax Code that makes sure that anyone relinquishing their U.S. citizenship is still on the hook to pay their fair share of U.S. taxes. We owe the Americans fighting in our Armed Forces an enormous debt of gratitude. These important tax reforms are one small way of saluting them for all that they do. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President I rise today to speak about S. 1496, the Pollinator Habitat Protection Act, which I introduced on May 24. Pulitzer Prize-winning insect biologist E.O. Wilson said the honeybee is nature's ``workhorse--and we took it for granted.'' That statement sums up the state of the Nation's honey bee. Our Nation's honeybees are being affected by a phenomenon named colony collapse disorder, and the symptoms are baffling. Since October 2006, 35 percent or more of the United States' population of the Western honeybee--billions of individual bees--simply flew from their hives and disappeared. We don't know what is causing their disappearance. The honeybee is an active pollinator for both agriculture and native plants. It is used commercially to pollinate crops across the country, and some crops, like apples and almonds, will not produce fruit without the assistance of the honeybee. My home State of Montana is the country's fifth largest honey-producing State. Without bees, Montana would not produce our famous huckleberries. During busy years, a hive might make up to five cross-country trips, following the crop blooming cycles. Scientists are speculating that the bees are stressed from making cross-country journeys and are being attacked by viruses and parasites. Either way, this is an emergency situation, and we have to do something now. That is why I am introducing the Pollinator Habitat Protection Act. This bill is simple and it makes sense. It is the right thing to do. Through the use of the existing conservation programs in the farm bill, agricultural producers would receive incentives to rebuild natural habitat with flowering plants to benefit pollinators such as honey bees. For example, instead of planting straight grass, a producer could plant clover, alfalfa, or other native flowering plants on land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program. Perhaps this bill's most attractive feature is that it does not cost additional money or create a new program. It simply requires existing conservation programs to acknowledge pollinator habitat as a conservation resource and rewards producers whose conservation practices are beneficial for pollinators. When the budget is tight, it is better to improve existing programs rather than create new ones. This is a dramatic important improvement for our conservation programs. It is not often we can protect our environment and increase producer's income at the same time. But that is exactly what this bill will do. This is one simple way to help out our honeybee population and give farmers another option to make money on their land. As a honorary cochair of the Pollinator Partnership, I am honored to introduce this legislation. I thank organizations like the Coevolution Institute which are doing the right thing, by bringing a diverse group of people together from across the country to address this challenging issue. I urge my colleagues to support S. 1496 the Pollinator Habitat Protection Act.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the history of Butte, Anaconda, and Walkerville is as bright and intricate as the people who live there. Stories of greed, danger, and power intermingle with values like hard work and loyalty, to weave a tapestry as rich as any city in America. As the Montana Historical Society has so richly shown, the history of Butte is the history of our country. As America began to slowly mature from a budding nation to an international superpower, the growing pains became evident. Settlers, packing what little belongings they could fit into the legendary prairie schooners, began to gaze at the horizon and seek fame and fortune on the Western frontier. As the trails became longer, and the distance grew greater, the limits of one nation were pressed. Yet the powers of American ingenuity and our Nation's legendary can-do spirit kicked in. Samuel Morse learned how to communicate through code, and Alexander Graham Bell discovered how to talk through wires. While these men showed great genius, without the sweat of working men and women these inventions would be nothing more than a footnote in history. But as miners extracted mountains of copper from the Earth's belly, telegraph and telephone wires began to crisscross our country. Suddenly, a letter that used to take days would now take minutes. Citizens on the eastern seaboard would know what was happening on the plains, and at last we truly were one Nation. And at the heart of this was Butte, Anaconda, and Walkerville. Here, the gallow frames and the towering Anaconda Company smokestacks pierce the skyline as a monument to the men and women whose toil became the bedrock of our great Nation. Though faced with danger, and even death, these workers strapped on their boots every morning and from daybreak till night provided the fuel for a growing nation. Faced with dire circumstance and physical harm, these workers developed a bond that none outside the mines could understand. They stood together through thick and thin, and truly were a family. This bond took form in two of the Nation's most radical unions, the Western Federation of Miners, and the Industrial Workers of the World. Located in ``the Gibraltar of Unionism'', Butte and Walkerville, these unions waged a class warfare the likes of which is still the fodder for legends. The class war soon came to a raging boil after the Butte Granite/Speculator Mine fire, the worst hard-rock mining disaster in the Nation's history. Unions were busted, agitators dealt with, and the crushing hand of the ``company'' dealt a crippling blow to the workers. Yet with the New Deal came new life for the unions. As the Federal Government guaranteed the right of workers to unionize, the strength of the men and women who worked the mines began to shine. In 1934, a 4- month strike, lead to the birth of the CIO, an organization that has become synonymous with unions, and workers' rights. Now, as Butte, Walkerville, and Anaconda usher in the 21st century, these cities' special past will be immortalized forever. In 2006, the National Park Service recognized that this trio of cities' history of mining and labor should be remembered for generations and declared the district a National Historic Landmark. I was proud to work with many people from the area, and showing the determination of their ancestors, was able to make this landmark a reality. The district will be the largest National Historic Landmark in the West, covering the period from 1876 to 1934 and encompassing nearly 10,000 acres with over 6,000 contributing resources. And one woman, whose heart and soul was poured into this district, is Ellen Crain, Director of the Butte Public Archives. With the undeterred tenacity of the miners before her, Ellen worked for 14 long years to make this possible. Because of her hard work, the citizens in the district will also be able to reflect with pride on their past, as they work to uphold the cities' great tradition in the future.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I honor a colleague, a friend, and a great Senator, Senator Craig Thomas. No words that I can speak will ease the sadness of this loss. Nothing my colleagues and I say can fill the emptiness that his passing has left or lessen the pain that so many feel. I feel compelled to speak of Senator Thomas not for the effect of my words. Instead, I speak to recognize the effect of his words, his actions, and his service. His were words, actions, and service that have improved the lives and futures of Americans. His words and actions will leave a legacy long after our sadness passes. Senator Thomas represented Wyoming effectively and with dignity. I was proud to work with him. We both loved the open beautiful spaces of our home States, and we worked to keep them clean, safe, and sustainable. We collaborated to improve the Endangered Species Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. We also worked to safeguard our constituents' livelihoods-- establishing the wool trust fund, keeping open global beef markets, and making sure that our trading partners played by the rules. We worked together to safeguard our natural resources, improve rural energy infrastructure, and plan for a sustainable energy future with clean coal technologies. These and many other accomplishments will be Senator Thomas's legacy. It is a legacy for which he deserves recognition, remembrance, and honor. It is a legacy for which our Nation is grateful. But many will remember Senator Thomas more for who he was than for what he did. They will remember someone with a quick wit, an easy smile, and a generous helping hand. I will remember Senator Thomas as I met him when he first joined the Senate in 1989. Back then, I recognized in him something very familiar. Senator Thomas was a man of the American West. He embodied the values and the character of the people whom he represented. You always knew where Senator Thomas stood. Like many in the West, Senator Thomas was quiet, unassuming, and unpretentious--but he was never intimidated. He was gentle and decent. When he gave you his word, he kept it. And as we all saw in these final months of his life, when he had to, he could fight like hell. That is the man I will miss and it is the man I wish to recognize today--an honorable Senator and a great man of the American West.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I rise today in support of an amendment with my good friend from Montana, Jon Tester. Our amendment would repeal all references to REAL ID in the immigration bill. Supreme Court Justice William Douglas once wrote that ``the right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom.'' If the right to be let alone is the beginning of all freedom, then Real ID is a step toward the end. REAL ID creates the framework for a national ID card and is a big Federal unfunded mandate. In sum, REAL ID requires two things: No. 1, Federal agencies can only accept State-issued driver's licenses in compliance with new Federal regulations. These new regulations would require all State-issued licenses to include a cardholder's personal information such as their home address and their fingerprints. No. 2, this information would then, by law, be accessible by all other States on an electronic database. These requirements may sound harmless to many, but REAL ID has serious flaws. Three merit special attention. No. 1, REAL ID puts America on track for a national ID card. This raises both privacy and practicality concerns. No. 2, REAL ID represents a large unfunded mandate on the States. No. 3, REAL ID poses a potential national security risk by dictating to States where their precious homeland security dollars should be spent, and it creates a magnet for identity theft. Let me take a moment to walk through these concerns individually. The standardized national driver's licenses created by REAL ID could become a key part of a system of identity papers--similar to a national ID. These standards would require State DMVs to collect extensive personal information from all cardholders. To issue a driver's license, the DMV will be required to collect birth certificates, utility bills, and other documents to verify an individual's residency. These documents would then be stored within the DMV database and accessible by all 50 States. The machine-readable technology required by REAL ID will enable businesses from taverns to airlines to collect personal information about their clients. They could then sell this personal information to anyone willing to pay. In addition, Federal agencies could use this new ID as an ``internal passport,'' tracking American's movements around the country. Americans will need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane or open a bank account. Seniors will need a new ID to collect Social Security payments. Citizens will need a new driver's license to take advantage of nearly any Government service. Finally, REAL ID requires that driver's licenses contain American's actual addresses. No post office boxes are allowed. The legislation fails to offer exceptions for judges or police. I can't imagine how such a violation of privacy could make our Nation more secure. In addition to causing problems for individuals, REAL ID is a nightmare for the States. REAL ID requires States to remake their driver's licenses, restructure their computer databases, and create extensive new document-storage systems. It is no wonder, therefore, why 15 States have passed legislation rejecting REAL ID. Another 11 have pushed bills rejecting REAL ID through one of their legislative chambers. From Washington State to Maine, Nevada to Georgia, red States and blue States, coastal States and the bread basket, all agree--they will not accept the provisions of REAL ID. In my home State of Montana, REAL ID has caused real headaches. It is estimated that it would cost $2.6 million for Montana to comply with REAL ID. Nationwide, the Department of Homeland Security estimates that the cost of implementing REAL ID could reach as much as $11 billion--a gross unfunded mandate from the Federal Government. 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 REAL ID. Republicans and Democrats alike in Montana's Legislature voted unanimously to reject REAL ID. I cannot support legislation that requires States to implement costly new security procedures--including security clearances and employee training--without providing the funds to implement such changes. I cannot support an effort to hoist this kind of bureaucracy upon Montanans, or any American, for that matter. However, some have argued that REAL ID is essential to protecting Americans from terrorism. Opponents of this amendment argue that REAL ID is required to deal with the influx of people expected to cross the border as a result of this bill. In short, larger waves of immigrants call for tougher standards on ID cards. While I am sympathetic to the concern that IDs should be secure, I believe that REAL ID does not achieve this goal. In fact, I believe REAL ID could harm our national security. 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. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 established a cooperative framework between State and Federal authorities to make our State driver's licenses more secure. The REAL ID Act ended that cooperative spirit. Instead of listening to State authorities, the REAL ID Act dictates to them. We should have stuck with the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. REAL ID goes a step too far. It makes it impossible for State authorities to decide for themselves where their scarce funds should go to fight against terrorism. Handcuffing our States with Federal bureaucracy is not the way to protect the American people from terrorism. I will always continue to fight for increased law enforcement funding, but I will not support a law that ties State officials' hands with more Government bureaucracy. I am also concerned that a centralized national database makes it possible for criminals or terrorists to perform identity theft on an unprecedented scale. We need to take a closer look at how a national database would be safeguarded from malicious hackers. We have already witnessed identity theft scares at Federal agencies like the Department of Veterans Affairs, where a simple burglary put nearly 27 million Social Security numbers in jeopardy. Now, imagine a terrorist having access to the name, height, weight, social security number, and biometric information for every American, all by penetrating one single firewall. REAL ID is a large unfunded mandate that impedes on American's privacy and could hurt our Nation's security. Our amendment joins the chorus of Montanans and Americans who say no to REAL ID. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, for years, Congress has not been able to answer the question, ``What can be done about rising medical malpractice insurance premiums?'' Today, Senator Enzi and I begin a process we hope will end with action by Congress to resolve the problem. The discussions the Senate has had about medical malpractice premiums until now have centered around imposing caps on noneconomic damages. The debate over caps has occurred several times in recent years, and has always ended with a failure to invoke cloture to vote on the legislation. I have consistently opposed caps legislation because caps have been unsuccessful in preventing increases in medical malpractice premiums in my home State of Montana, as well as several other States. Clearly, it is time for a different approach. The problem of rising insurance premiums affects the medical community, the legal community and, most importantly, patients. Doctors, burdened with continually-increasing insurance costs, have chosen to retire early, relocate their practices, or limit the services they provide to avoid high-risk procedures. Lawyers are concerned that reforms limit patients' ability to be compensated for their injuries. While patients find themselves caught in the middle, with ever- decreasing access to medical and legal services. One of the reasons caps do not offer significant hope for improving the situation is that they treat the symptom of increasing premiums but not the underlying disease. We need to look for solutions that get to the root of the problem. Any successful resolution to the problem must focus on compensating injured patients and on attempting to prevent similar injuries in the future. A 1999 Institute of Medicine study, To Err is Human, estimated that medical errors cause as many as 98,000 deaths per year in our Nation's hospitals alone. Even more deaths occur over the long-term and outside hospitals. I think a new approach is in order. As such, Senator Enzi and I introduced the Fair and Reliable Medical Justice Act in the 109th Congress, and we are here today to reintroduce it. Our bill is innovative in how it confronts the problem. We believe that a solution to this complex problem requires flexibility. We believe that because the civil justice system is largely a function of State law, the States are best situated to decide how their systems can be improved to work better for patients. We also believe that changes of this order should be tested and well thought out rather than simply mandated. There is no one size fits all answer. So, our bill provides flexibility, leaves the decision-making to States and provides for demonstration programs to implement change in a thoughtful way. We owe a debt of gratitude to the experts at the Institute of Medicine for their 2002 report entitled, Fostering Rapid Advances in Health Care: Learning from System Demonstration, for helping shape the Fair and Reliable Justice Act. Our bill promotes State-based demonstrations of alternatives to current medical liability litigation. It aims to increase the number of patients who receive compensation for their injuries. It also tries to improve the speed with which they receive such compensation. The bill also encourages patient safety by promoting disclosure of medical errors, unlike the current tort system which encourages doctors to cover up medical mistakes. Because the insurance premium problem and civil justice remedies vary by state we feel that the States are best positioned to analyze their unique situations and most capable to implement an effective solution. Therefore, the Fair and Reliable Medical Justice Act would establish State-based demonstration programs. The bill allows States to develop new ways to address and resolve their health care dispute issues. There are innovative efforts already in effect in the private sector and some States that have achieved some success. I think it is time to encourage more innovation, to expand the range of options, and to empower the states to experiment and learn how to solve this persistent problem. I want to thank Senator Enzi for his leadership on this issue. I am proud to have worked with him. I also want to recognize Representatives Cooper and Thornberry, who are dropping a companion bill in the House today. This bill approaches the medical liability insurance premium problem from a new perspective, through a set of common-sense pilot projects centered on improving patient safety. Rather than mandating a Federal band-aid for this recurring problem, this bill encourages the States to be innovative and creative to solve the problem while giving them flexibility and Federal support to implement their cures.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, for years, Congress has not been able to answer the question, ``What can be done about rising medical malpractice insurance premiums?'' Today, Senator Enzi and I begin a process we hope will end with action by Congress to resolve the problem. The discussions the Senate has had about medical malpractice premiums until now have centered around imposing caps on noneconomic damages. The debate over caps has occurred several times in recent years, and has always ended with a failure to invoke cloture to vote on the legislation. I have consistently opposed caps legislation because caps have been unsuccessful in preventing increases in medical malpractice premiums in my home State of Montana, as well as several other States. Clearly, it is time for a different approach. The problem of rising insurance premiums affects the medical community, the legal community and, most importantly, patients. Doctors, burdened with continually-increasing insurance costs, have chosen to retire early, relocate their practices, or limit the services they provide to avoid high-risk procedures. Lawyers are concerned that reforms limit patients' ability to be compensated for their injuries. While patients find themselves caught in the middle, with ever- decreasing access to medical and legal services. One of the reasons caps do not offer significant hope for improving the situation is that they treat the symptom of increasing premiums but not the underlying disease. We need to look for solutions that get to the root of the problem. Any successful resolution to the problem must focus on compensating injured patients and on attempting to prevent similar injuries in the future. A 1999 Institute of Medicine study, To Err is Human, estimated that medical errors cause as many as 98,000 deaths per year in our Nation's hospitals alone. Even more deaths occur over the long-term and outside hospitals. I think a new approach is in order. As such, Senator Enzi and I introduced the Fair and Reliable Medical Justice Act in the 109th Congress, and we are here today to reintroduce it. Our bill is innovative in how it confronts the problem. We believe that a solution to this complex problem requires flexibility. We believe that because the civil justice system is largely a function of State law, the States are best situated to decide how their systems can be improved to work better for patients. We also believe that changes of this order should be tested and well thought out rather than simply mandated. There is no one size fits all answer. So, our bill provides flexibility, leaves the decision-making to States and provides for demonstration programs to implement change in a thoughtful way. We owe a debt of gratitude to the experts at the Institute of Medicine for their 2002 report entitled, Fostering Rapid Advances in Health Care: Learning from System Demonstration, for helping shape the Fair and Reliable Justice Act. Our bill promotes State-based demonstrations of alternatives to current medical liability litigation. It aims to increase the number of patients who receive compensation for their injuries. It also tries to improve the speed with which they receive such compensation. The bill also encourages patient safety by promoting disclosure of medical errors, unlike the current tort system which encourages doctors to cover up medical mistakes. Because the insurance premium problem and civil justice remedies vary by state we feel that the States are best positioned to analyze their unique situations and most capable to implement an effective solution. Therefore, the Fair and Reliable Medical Justice Act would establish State-based demonstration programs. The bill allows States to develop new ways to address and resolve their health care dispute issues. There are innovative efforts already in effect in the private sector and some States that have achieved some success. I think it is time to encourage more innovation, to expand the range of options, and to empower the states to experiment and learn how to solve this persistent problem. I want to thank Senator Enzi for his leadership on this issue. I am proud to have worked with him. I also want to recognize Representatives Cooper and Thornberry, who are dropping a companion bill in the House today. This bill approaches the medical liability insurance premium problem from a new perspective, through a set of common-sense pilot projects centered on improving patient safety. Rather than mandating a Federal band-aid for this recurring problem, this bill encourages the States to be innovative and creative to solve the problem while giving them flexibility and Federal support to implement their cures.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the tax provisions included in this bill would help small businesses to succeed. These provisions would spur investment and thus create jobs. They would provide greater opportunity for workers looking for a job. They all enjoy strong support. The bill helps businesses to provide jobs for workers who have experienced barriers to entering the workforce by extending and expanding the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, or WOTC. WOTC encourages businesses to hire workers who might not otherwise find work. WOTC allows employers a tax credit for wages that they pay to economically disadvantaged employees. WOTC has been remarkably successful. By reducing expenditures on public assistance, WOTC is highly cost-effective. The business community is highly supportive of these credits. Industries like retail and restaurants that hire many low-skill workers find it especially useful. The bill would extend WOTC for more than 3 years, and the bill would increase and expand the credit for employers who hire disabled veterans. The bill would also expand the credit to make it available to employers who hire people in counties that have suffered significant population losses. To carry out day-to-day activities, small business owners are often required to invest significant amounts of money in depreciable property, such as machinery. The bill would help business owners to afford these large purchases for their businesses. To do so, the bill would extend for another year expensing under section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code. New equipment and property are necessary to successfully operate a business. But large business purchases generally require depreciation across a number of years, and depreciation requires additional bookkeeping. Expensing under section 179 allows for an immediate 100-percent deduction of the cost for most personal property purchased for use in a business. The bill increases the expensing limit from $112,000 to $125,000, and the bill increases the phase-out threshold from $450,000 to $500,000 for 2007. When small business owners are able to expense equipment, they no longer have to keep depreciation records on that equipment. So extending section 179 expensing would ease small business bookkeeping burdens. The bill includes a package of tax incentives to help recovery of small business and low-income housing in areas hit by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. The bill also requires GAO to conduct a study on how State and local governments have allocated and utilized the tax incentives that have been provided for these areas since 2005. We want to make sure that the tax incentives that Congress provided for hurricane recovery are being properly used, and we want to make sure that these incentives are providing the much-needed help for which they were created. Tips received by restaurant employees are treated as wages for purposes of Social Security taxes. As such, employers must pay Social Security taxes on tips received by their employees. These employers receive a business tax credit for taxes paid on tip income in excess of the Federal minimum wage rate. The bill would prevent a decrease in the amount of this business tax credit that restaurant owners may claim despite an increase in the Federal minimum wage. Currently, if a small business jointly owned by a married couple files taxes as a sole proprietorship, only the filing spouse receives credit for paying Social Security and Medicare taxes. Furthermore, unless the married couple is located in a community property State, both the married couple and the business are subject to penalties for failing to file as a partnership. The bill would allow an unincorporated business that is jointly owned by a married couple in a common law State to file as a sole proprietorship without penalty. The bill would also ensure that both spouses receive credit for paying Social Security and Medicare taxes. Current law limits a small business' ability to claim WOTC and the tip credit by imposing a limitation that such credits cannot be used to offset taxes that would be imposed under the alternative minimum tax, or AMT. The bill would provide a permanent waiver for WOTC and the tip credit and would allow WOTC and the tip credit to be taken under AMT. The bill would help small businesses by modifying S corporation rules. These modifications reduce the effect of what some call the ``sting tax.'' These modifications would improve the viability of community banks. The tax language included in the bill is a responsible package. It would ensure the continued growth and success of small businesses. And we have also paid for it. The offsets include a proposal to discourage the practice of transferring investments to one's child for the purpose of avoiding higher tax rates. The offsets also include proposals to improve tax administration. The offsets would allow the IRS more time to notify the taxpayer about a deficiency before it must stop charging interest and penalties. The offsets include making permanent the fees that the IRS is authorized to charge for private letter rulings and other forms of guidance. The offsets also enhance penalties that the IRS may impose when taxpayers and preparers do not comply with the law. The offsets would also prohibit employers from using the collection due process to delay or prevent the IRS from collecting delinquent trust fund employment taxes. The hard-working American taxpayers whom we are trying to help in this bill should not have to pay more in taxes because some taxpayers are abusing the tax system. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has made available to the public a technical explanation of the tax provisions of H.R. 2206. The technical explanation expresses the committee's understanding and legislative intent behind this important legislation. It will be available on the Joint Committee's website at www.house.gov/jct. These are sound tax policy changes. Let's finally enact an increase in the minimum wage, and let's also pass this useful package of tax benefits to help America's small businesses. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 4 p.m. in closed session to mark up the Readiness and Management Support Programs and Provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Seapower Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 9 a.m. in closed session to mark up the Seapower Programs and Provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Personnel Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 10 a.m. in closed session to mark up the Personnel Programs and Provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in closed session to mark up the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Programs and Provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, after the first rollcall vote of the day in the reception room adjacent to the Floor, to conduct a vote on the nomination of Dr. Michael J. Kussman to be Under Secretary for Health at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a hearing entitled ``Minority Entrepreneurship: Assessing the Effectiveness of SBA's Programs for the Minority Business Community,'' on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Restoring Habeas Corpus: Protecting American Values and the Great Writ'' for Tuesday, May 22, 2007, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226. Witness list: RADM Donald Guter, USN (ret.), Dean, Duquesne University School of Law, Pittsburgh, PA; William Howard Taft IV, Of Counsel Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, Washington, DC; Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, Professor, Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA; David B. Rivkin, Jr., Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Washington, DC; and Orin Kerr, Professor, George Washington University Law School, Washington, DC.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, at 3 p.m. for a hearing titled ``Implementing FEMA Reform: Are We Prepared for the 2007 Hurricane Season?''

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, at 10 a.m. to hold a nomination hearing.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building for a hearing entitled ``Examining the Case for the California Waiver.''

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 645, a bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to provide an alternate sulfur dioxide removal measurement for certain coal gasification project goals; S. 838, a bill to authorize funding joint ventures between United States and Israeli businesses and academic persons; S. 1089, a bill to amend the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act to follow the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation projects to hire employees more efficiently, and for other purposes; S. 1203, a bill to enhance the management of electricity programs at the Department of Energy; H.R. 85, a bill to provide for the establishment of centers to encourage demonstration and commercial application of advanced energy methods and technologies; and H.R. 1126, a bill to reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in support of our troops. There are few things as important as the gift of one's labor, one's love, one's life. Our soldiers are asked to make generous sacrifices of these precious commodities every day. Our finest young soldiers work 19 hours a day in hot, dry, dangerous places such as Fallujah and Kabul. They do so because they have a deep love of country. Many of our soldiers make the ultimate sacrifice with their lives. Increasingly, we are asking more and more of our soldiers. In April, Secretary Gates announced he is extending the tours of duty for active-duty soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan from 12 to 15 months. Our troops have already accomplished so much: deposed Saddam Hussein, toppled the Taliban, responded to the threats posed by vicious terrorists around the world. They have done everything we have asked of them. I was, therefore, disappointed when I came across a newspaper article this weekend noting that the administration opposes a modest pay raise for American soldiers. The House Defense authorization bill includes a one-half of 1 percent increase in military pay above the President's request. For the average new enlistee, this will amount to roughly $75 per year in extra pay-- clearly, not enough to cover additional costs: school clothes for kids, a family trip to the ballpark, a few tanks of gas at the prices we are stuck paying. The increase is aimed at reducing the gap in pay between comparable military and civilian jobs that stands at about 4 percent today. Even after the proposed increase, that gap will remain at least 1.4 percent, clearly not keeping up with civilian pay increases. Of the billions of dollars we spend on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it would seem absurd to oppose this small pay bump, but that is exactly what the administration is doing. In a May 17, 2007, letter to the House Armed Services Committee, the President's budget director announced the pay increase included in the House bill is ``unnecessary.'' I believe it is necessary. I believe it is necessary to do anything we can to provide for the welfare of our fighting men and women. Salaries for newly minted enlistees start at about $15,600 per year. To put this in perspective, new enlistees with three or more dependents are eligible for food stamps. Among the sacrifices we ask of our men and women in harm's way, going hungry should not be one of them. In addition, the administration opposes a $40 per month increase in allowances for the widows of slain soldiers. Again, this is a modest bump in benefits and pales in comparison to the sacrifice these families have made. Forty dollars a month extra won't make it any easier to face another day without a loved one who is lost, but it could help pay the rent, keep the heat on, and relieve a bit of stress for families facing a new world without their spouse. That is why I am urging the administration to reconsider their opposition to a pay increase and additional survivor benefit. Supporting our troops is something we all agree on, Republicans and Democrats alike. I ask the President to reconsider his opposition to increased pay for our soldiers and aid for this war's widows. We may not all agree on what we should do in Iraq going forward, but I believe we can and should reach a simple accommodation on troop pay. Mr. President, I see my friend getting prepared. I ask for 1 or 2 minutes' indulgence. children's health Mr. President, in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bibles, the book of Ben Sirah counsels: ``Observe the opportunity.'' This year, the Senate has the opportunity to improve the health of millions of American children, for the next decade. The Senate has the opportunity to renew and improve the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. Let us seize the opportunity. There is no greater health care priority for me this year. In a few short weeks, the Finance Committee will consider legislation to reauthorize and strengthen this successful 10-year-old program. Many of us were present in this Chamber when we created CHIP in 1997. Since then, this program has proven to be a true success. Since its inception, CHIP has brought health insurance to more than 40 million low-income children. It has saved the lives of many children, and it has improved the availability and quality of care for many more. In my home State of Montana, Fawn Tuhy has some pretty active kids. Montana is a State full of active kids, and active kids get hurt. Fawn's 2-year-old needed stitches after hitting her head. Fawn's 6- year-old broke his arm twice. Fawn's medical bills could have sunk their family of six. But she credits CHIP with keeping her kids healthy, and her family afloat. CHIP has made that kind of difference for millions of Americans, in the last 10 years. Among families with incomes less than about $34,000 a year--that is twice the poverty level--the share of uninsured children has dropped by a quarter. CHIP has held the number of uninsured children down, even as the number of uninsured adult Americans has increased. But Congress cannot rest on its laurels. We have to continue CHIP. We have to build on its success, and we have to do it before CHIP's funding expires, on September 30. The Finance Committee is poised to act, with a markup early next month. In this reauthorization, we will pursue five principles: First, we must provide adequate funds to keep coverage for those who have it now. Last week, the Congressional Budget Office reported that CHIP needs an additional $13.4 billion, just to maintain current coverage. Maintaining level funding is just not good enough. If funding stays flat, then 4 million American children could lose health coverage, over the next 10 years. Second, we must also reach the 6 million uninsured children who are eligible for either CHIP or Medicaid coverage but not enrolled. CBO says that the best opportunity to further reduce the number of uninsured children is to target CHIP enrollment toward more families whose incomes are below twice the poverty level. Third, we must support State efforts to expand CHIP coverage to more kids. States have found innovative ways to reach as many uninsured kids as possible. States have acted according to their unique abilities and needs. Fourth, we must improve the quality of health care that children receive. We are making great strides to improve the quality of health care for adults through Medicare. Yet there is no comparable investment in quality standards for children. We can and must do more. Fifth, whatever we do, we must not add to the numbers of the uninsured. Right now, Federal waivers let some States provide CHIP coverage to pregnant women, to parents of eligible children, and even to some adults without children. Congress may not want CHIP to cover all those groups in the future, but we must not pull the rug out from under anyone who has health coverage today. Too many CHIP recipients are already in imminent danger. Right now, 14 State programs are facing shortfalls for this year--even before CHIP's 10-year authorization expires. I worked hard to include funds to cover funding shortfalls in the supplemental appropriations bill. But even if we fix this year's shortfalls, many more States will face funding gaps in the coming years. We need to ensure greater predictability and stability of CHIP funding. Ten years ago, we simply did not know how much funding CHIP would take. We know much more now, and we should make the appropriate financial commitment to keep kids healthy. We must take a forward- thinking approach. We must consider the likelihood of continuing increases in health care costs, and we must consider likely population changes. We must consider that a child born today may have a shorter life expectancy than his or her parents. But that is what we face, due to the threats of obesity and related illnesses. So reauthorization must strengthen prevention and early screening benefits. As we tackle CHIP, we should keep in mind the deep need for broader health reform. There are still too many families whose health stories don't have happy endings. CHIP cannot help them all. But it should help more. One morning last year, Kearstin Jacobson woke up in Whitefish, MT, with a severe headache. Tests showed that the high school senior had a clot, preventing the blood flow from her brain. Kearstin got wonderful care. But it cost almost a quarter of a million dollars, and her family did not have health insurance. So even as the hospital staff wheeled Kearstin out of the emergency room, this young lady with a life-threatening condition was worried about money. She was telling her parents how concerned she was about the financial burdens that her care would cause. Kearstin feared that her parents would be paying for her care for many years to come, and they are. This year, Congress has a historic opportunity to help families like Kearstin's. We have an opportunity to make a good health policy for children even better. An overwhelming majority of Americans support CHIP. I extend my hand to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Let's work together. CHIP is not a Democratic priority or a Republican priority. It is an American priority. America's kids are depending on us to do this right. We must not disappoint them. Let us observe the opportunity to improve the health of millions of American children. Let us observe the opportunity to give peace of mind and financial security to millions of families. And let us renew and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program. I thank the Senator from Alabama and yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. I have consulted with Senator Sessions. I asked if it was OK if I proceeded for 5 minutes preceding his remarks. Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I understand under the order, Senator Sessions is to be recognized to speak for a period of time.