Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss reauthorization of the Federal rail safety program.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Airland Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 12:30 p.m. in closed session to mark up the airland 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 Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, at 10 a.m. to conduct a joint hearing entitled ``GAO Personnel Reform: Does it meet expectations?'' The joint hearing will take place in conjunction with the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the House Subcommittee of Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, be authorized to hold a hearing on the MINER Act during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 10 a.m. in room 628 of the Senate Dirksen office building.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the distinguished career of James F. Ahrens, who will soon retire as head of the Montana Hospital Association. Jim Ahrens has been a mainstay of Montana's health care community for over two decades, and I know that I speak for that community when I say that his presence as the head of MHA will be missed. Jim Ahrens has served as president of MHA . . . An Association of Montana Health Care Providers, for nearly 21 years. Health care has changed a lot since the mid-1980s, in good ways and bad. Our scientists have developed remarkable new treatments. Yet, as ranks of the uninsured grow, many Americans can't take advantage of those treatments. We have prevented Medicare's trust fund from going broke. Yet the program still faces serious long-term fiscal challenges. We have enacted the most significant change Part D--in Medicare's history. Yet the new benefit has been marred by early administrative missteps. As a key player in health care over the last two decades, I have relied on Jim to gain a better understanding of these ever-changing events. I have also come to know Jim as a close personal friend. When it comes to Jim, I don't have any `and yets.' I can think of no better example than that than his work on the Critical Access Hospital program. Back in the late 1980s, a citizens' task force came up with the idea of a limited service hospital for rural and frontier areas. This new type of hospital would provide access to primary care in the most remote stretches of the country, while receiving a break from the strict regulatory requirements governing hospitals and health facilities. The Montana Legislature took the recommendations for this new type of facility and created a special licensure category. As incoming leader of MHA, Jim's job was to bring the concept to life. Having just moved from Chicago to run the Montana Hospital Association, he hit the ground running. Jim worked with the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services to develop a demonstration project for this new type of facility. He and I then worked with the Federal Department of Health and Human Services' regional office in Denver to establish a demonstration project and secure a Federal grant to fund it. This demonstration project--the Medical Assistance Facility Project-- was hugely successful and served as the model for the Critical Access Hospital Program that I authored in 1997. Today, more than 1,300 hospitals around the Nation enjoy CAH status, ensuring access to high- quality medical treatment in some of the most remote parts of our land. I am very proud to have written that bill and to have made changes to improve the CAH program since then. I am just as proud to have worked with Jim in the process. With over 45 CAHs operating in Montana, the idea of a limited-service rural hospital has moved from concept to the mainstream. I have no doubt that the CAH Program has kept a number of Montana hospitals from closing. And when you are dealing with Montana- sized distances in health care, that can mean the difference between life and death. Through it all, Jim has been a mainstay. Always patient and kind but always thinking ahead, his innovative style and vision have brought people together for a healthier Montana. He changed MHA . . . from a collection of hospitals to MHA . . . An Association of Montana Health Care Providers--a united group of hospitals, nursing homes, home health organizations, hospices, and physicians. He applied the same philosophy to form the Alliance for a Healthy Montana--a coalition of more than 25 health care organizations. The Alliance is now an effective and cohesive voice for health care change in Montana and came about almost solely because of Jim's efforts. Over the past 8 years, the Alliance has spearheaded three ballot initiatives, including one that reformed Montana's tobacco tax rate and two others that earmarked national tobacco settlement funds to pay for health care programs in Montana. It makes sense that Jim would take the consensus approach that he did, working to build a coalition from a group constituencies that weren't obvious allies. After all, Jim has spent his entire career as an executive in health care associations. He understood--and showed by example--the powerful role associations can play in representing members' needs before Congress, legislatures, regulatory agencies, and private organizations. As I said, Jim has been a trusted adviser to me throughout the last two decades. I have come to trust his perspective, judgment, and knowledge on health issues great and small. I have also benefited from Jim's friendship. He is a gracious, compassionate, and generous person--the kind of guy people like to be around. And while the people of MHA will miss having Jim around, I know that his family and friends look forward to seeing a bit more of this exceptional individual. Jim's transition will be complete on June 30, when he makes his retirement official. On behalf of a healthier Montana, we wish Jim Ahrens well.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. I first congratulate the new chairman of the committee, Senator Boxer, for taking her first bill to the floor. She is doing a great job. It is out of committee virtually unanimously. She brought out a bill that was worked out in advance and she is doing a terrific job. I highly commend her. Benjamin Franklin once wrote: When the well is dry, we know the worth of water. Westerners, including the current occupant of the chair, have learned this painful lesson many times. Recently, several years of drought have plagued farmers and ranchers across my State of Montana and many other parts of the country. Weatherworn switch grass and crops bring a terrible cost to producers in the West. The West's battle with drought highlights the pressing need to ensure our water resources are used efficiently. I remind my colleagues, it doesn't rain a lot in the West. The annual rainfall west of the 100th meridian, down from Minnesota and across the country, is much less than in the eastern part of the country. In Montana, the average precipitation--rain, snow, all of it--in our towns is roughly about 13 inches a year. In Washington, DC, it is about 44 inches a year. That is a big difference, and that is in ordinary years. We have had a lot of drought in the West in the last several years. Therefore, this Water Resources Development Act is long overdue. Although the Senate passed this legislation last year, the conference with the House fell short of resolution, so we are here today to get this bill over the goal line. I think we will finally get there. The bill provides authority for the Corps of Engineers to move forward on many long overdue water resources projects. In 1986, Congress enacted the Water Resources Development Act, or WRDA. Every 2 years since then, Congress received proposals from the administration seeking authorization for water resources projects-- every 2 years, since 1986. Why? It is clearly because there are new needs every 2 years. This pattern of requests provided the Corps and local sponsors with a regular planning schedule, helped them know what was on the drawing boards, which projects would be developed first and second, with some regularity, the planning for the development of needed resource projects in our country. This administration, however, has yet to request one update of this legislation. Why is that? Well, I ask the question: Have all the water resources needs of the country been met? Clearly, the answer is no. Scores of water resources projects are awaiting authorization. Second, does this administration think this legislation costs too much? Perhaps, but remember, investing in our water resources infrastructure is a cost we cannot put off. This is not an annual recurring operating expense; it is an investment that pays huge dividends. Levees are crumbling. People are living in harm's way, waiting for this legislation to help provide them with protection. This bill authorizes projects that will provide needed flood and storm damage protection, navigation improvements and environmental restoration. All three are very important. There is authority for rebuilding and restoring the coast of Louisiana generally, but this legislation provides specific authority for that rebuilding and restoration, devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Authority for modernizing the lock and dam system on the Mississippi River is contained in here, and authority for ecosystem restoration projects, all the way from New Jersey, to Florida, to Colorado. There is a lot in this legislation. The Corps of Engineers is charged with the management of America's water resources. The Corps of Engineers built levees and floats barges. In my State of Montana, we see the Corps as restorers of the ecosystem. We see the Corps as guardians of America's recreational assets, such as the Missouri River, Yellowstone River, and the Fort Peck Reservoir. We in Montana have 11,000 miles of blue ribbon trout streams. Montana is home to the mighty Missouri River and the beautiful Yellowstone River. The Yellowstone is the longest remaining free-flowing river in our country. Montana's Fort Peck Reservoir provides outstanding recreation for the eastern part of my State. There is a huge fishing tournament in the Fort Peck Reservoir. The Corps helps make that happen. We value the Corps' expertise and their partnership in many of our water resources projects. I might name several projects that are important and will continue that tradition in Montana: the Yellowstone River and Tributaries Recovery project; the lower Yellowstone project at Intake, MT; the Missouri River and Tributaries Recovery project; the upper basin of the Missouri River project. These projects will all provide improvements and provide valuable protection for the valuable resources in our State and, with all the tourism coming to our States, for a lot of Americans as well. There is also an important authorization for the rehabilitation and improvement of a very important large aging water project on the Blackfeet Reservation in Glacier County called St. Mary Diversion. This system is rusting, cracking, and crumbling before our eyes. It is deteriorating, and 17,000 Montanans on the highline--the northern part of the State--depend on this system. It is a Federal system, but it is falling apart. Without St. Mary, the lower Milk River would go dry 6 out of every 10 years, imperiling the water source for thousands of Montana families. This is irrigation and also drinking water. I cannot believe that in the United States we don't have good drinking water in large parts of my State. That is an outrage. These important water projects, and their importance to the communities the projects serve, underline the need to move this legislation forward. Our first priority, therefore, is to authorize the long overdue projects in the WRDA bill this year. I hope we can get the administration's support to do that this year. We passed a bill last year. Let's get it enacted this year. Let's do our part to ensure that our water resources needs are met and let's get back to the biennial practice of enacting a water development resources bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield briefly?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I confirm a point made by our good friend from Missouri that there has been close cooperation in putting the bill together. I commend the Senator from Missouri. He has done a super job and so has Chairman Boxer, who is our leader. She sets the tone and gets us working together, and Senator Inhofe is right there with her. I thank the Senator for being helpful.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to thank Rev. Paul Rowold, pastor of Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Polson, MT. The prophet Isaiah wrote: The Lord has given me the tongue of a teacher, that I may know how to sustain the weary with a word. Thank you, Pastor Paul, for being here to sustain us today and opening our Senate in prayer. Pastor Paul served Lutheran congregations in several other places in the country--Rockford, IL, and Englewood, CO--prior to his call to Polson, MT, in 1977. Polson--for those of you who don't know, and I am sure more of you do--is a small community on the Flathead Indian Reservation in Montana. It sits at the south end of Flathead Lake, one of the largest natural freshwater--actually, to be precise, we have to get our adjectives lined up here--Flathead is the largest freshwater lake west of the Mississippi and, I might say, near some of the most pristine wilderness on the planet. Pastor Paul is an expert on the Holy Land, and he has traveled there more than 20 times, both as an archaeologist and as a tour guide. We were just earlier talking about his experience as a tour guide and just how wonderfully warm he and his family have been received as tour guides when they have been in Palestine. It was very warm and encouraging just listening to him describe that. He is here today with his wife Donna and two of his daughters, Katie and Stephanie, as well as with many of his extended family. They are all enjoying this moment with Pastor Paul, and we welcome all of you here today, too. So, Paul, thank you for your life of faith, your leadership of the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, and for your service to the community of Polson, MT, and to many others who I know attend your church. Thank you very much.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I understand and share the concerns expressed by Senator Kerry and Senator Snowe. I agree that owners and renters should receive the same tax treatment for improvements. There are many small businesses in Montana in which the owners would like to make improvements. And this provision would be extremely helpful. Just this week, I received an e-mail message from Scott Brown, the owner of The Base Camp in Helena, MT. Scott told me how this provision would help him and other Montana retailers to be more competitive. I will continue to work with my colleagues to find additional opportunities to address this important provision.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the pending emergency supplemental appropriations bill includes a number of items within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. I would have preferred that the Senate had considered these matters on legislation that the Finance Committee had reported. I believe in the committee process. In the future, I will try to minimize the occasions on which Finance Committee legislation travels on legislation reported by other committees. But the House of Representatives included the minimum wage and small business tax provisions in the House-passed version of this supplemental appropriations bill. So it was only appropriate that the full Senate respond. The Senate Appropriations Committee added matters related to health care, so it was only appropriate that the conference committee on this supplemental appropriations bill address those issues, as well. I appreciate that the conference committee on this supplemental appropriations bill deferred to members of the Finance Committee in the formulation of these Finance Committee tax and health matters in the conference report on this bill. I particularly thank Chairman Byrd for his assistance in this regard. Some have been concerned that an increase in the minimum wage would burden small businesses. Small businesses are a vital source of job creation, economic opportunity, and technological innovation. There are about 23 million small businesses in America. Businesses with fewer than 500 employees represent more than 99 percent of all businesses in America. They pay more than 45 percent of American private payroll. They have generated 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually over the last decade. They employ 41 percent of high-tech workers. Small business is particularly important in my home State of Montana. Small businesses are the backbone of our communities. We have the opportunity to help small businesses through tax incentives that stimulate their rates of formation and growth. That is why Chairman Rangel and I worked together to combine the House and Senate small business tax packages to achieve a comprehensive small business tax package. This is a responsible package that will help small businesses in the context of an increase in the Federal minimum wage. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has made available to the public a technical explanation of the bill. The technical explanation expresses the committee's understanding and legislative intent behind this important legislation. The small business tax package provided a more than 3-year extension of the work opportunity tax credit, or WOTC. WOTC allows employers a tax credit for wages that they pay to economically disadvantaged employees. The final small business tax package also expands WOTC to allow the credit for employers who hire disabled veterans, a proposal that was part of both the Senate and House packages. The package includes the Senate's proposed expansion to allow the credit for employers who hire employees in a county that has suffered significant population loss. The small business tax package also includes a 1-year extension of section 179 expensing. Section 179 allows small business owners to purchase and write off more equipment each year for use in their trade or business. Section 179 expensing was included in both the Senate and House small business tax packages. The final small business tax package also increases the amount allowed to be expensed in 2007 from $112,000 to $125,000, a proposal in the House version. Enhancement of the tip credit, family business tax simplification, and waiver of limitations under the alternative minimum tax on WOTC and tip credits are three other House proposals included in the final small business tax package. Enhancement of the tip credit for certain small businesses will prevent a decrease in the amount of business tax credit that restaurant and other service-oriented business owners may claim for the Social Security taxes that they pay on their employee's tips despite an increase in the Federal minimum wage. The family business tax simplification proposal ensures that when a married couple jointly owns a small business, both spouses will receive credit for paying Social Security and Medicare taxes. The waiver of individual and corporate AMT limitations on WOTC and tip credits would allow business owners to take the WOTC and tip credits under AMT. The Senate's S corporation package is also included in the final small business tax package. The S corporation package includes several simplifications and modifications to rules governing community banks and other small businesses that operate as S corporations. The small business tax package includes several tax incentives included in both the Senate and House small business tax packages to help recovery of small business and low-income housing in areas hit by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. The small business tax package is a responsible package that is completely offset. The package includes offsets that were included in both the Senate and the House small business tax packages, such as modification to the interest suspension rules for IRS and a proposal to discourage the practice of transferring investments to one's child for the purpose of avoiding higher tax rates. The package also includes modifications to the collection due process for employment taxes, an expansion of preparer penalties, and a new penalty on erroneous refund claims. These offsets were part of the administration's fiscal year 2008 budget proposal to improve tax compliance. The small business tax package does not include the Senate's 15-year depreciation proposal for improvements made to leaseholds, retailer- owned businesses, and restaurants. Nor does this final package include the Senate's proposal to expand availability of the cash method of accounting. These proposals both have merit. They were included in the chairman's mark when the Finance Committee wrote the Senate's small business tax package. These proposals enjoy the support of many Senators, including Senators Kerry and Snowe. But there simply was not enough room in a $4.8 billion conference package to include the 15-year depreciation and cash method of accounting proposals, as they have a combined estimated pricetag of nearly $7.4 billion. But this will not be the last bill in which the Senate can address these important proposals. If and when the President vetoes this bill, and it comes back again, we need to preserve the integrity of this balanced compromise. Congress should not litigate this tax package over again. I urge my colleagues to support this package. This bill also accomplishes key urgent health priorities. The bill includes emergency funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. This fiscal year, 14 States will run short in their Federal CHIP funds by a total of about $624 million. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 700,000 children will lose CHIP coverage unless Congress acts. This bill fills the gap in Federal CHIP funds. It ensures that all States can meet the demand for CHIP coverage for all those now eligible for coverage this year. I thank Chairman Byrd and Chairman Harkin for their help on this provision. Keeping children from losing their health coverage is a critical national priority. I will work with my colleagues to ensure that the final supplemental bill includes this provision. Another provision originally offered by Senator Durbin puts a 1-year hold on rulemaking relating to Medicaid payment rates for public hospitals and nursing homes. In January, the Secretary of Health and Human Services proposed a rule that would make sweeping changes to reimbursement rates for public facilities. The rule also proposed major changes to how States can define which governmental facilities can pay a State's Medicaid share. The Nation's Governors have weighed in against the Medicaid rule, as have many hospitals and nursing homes. They are concerned that this rule would do immediate harm to our Nation's safety net by cutting Medicaid reimbursement for publicly owned facilities that serve our most vulnerable citizens. I am concerned this rule goes too far in implementing new policy, making changes that are better made by Congress. It is Congress's job to make major changes to the law. A 1-year moratorium will give the Finance Committee enough time to study this issue and determine the right approach in legislation to limit opportunities for fraud and abuse of Medicaid, while protecting the vulnerable individuals and vital safety net providers who rely on Medicaid payments. Some have raised concerns about the original Durbin amendment moratorium. They said that it should not have been included in an appropriations bill and that it could undermine oversight of Medicaid at the Department of Health and Human Services. I agree that we should keep Finance Committee issues within the committee. In this case, however, the Department is poised to act before July of this year. We need to take action now, before it is too late. I also agree that protecting against fraud and abuse in Medicaid is a priority. Not one taxpayer dollar should be misspent. That is why the revised version of this amendment clarifies that the moratorium has no affect on all other Medicaid integrity enforcement activity at the Department of Health and Human Services. This final version also removes the increase in the Medicaid prescription drug rebate that was used to offset the cost and replaces it with other Medicaid policies that will save Federal dollars. The new version includes provisions that will lower the incidence of fraud in Medicaid drug prescribing and preserve access to affordable prescriptions for 100,000 seniors covered by Wisconsin's Pharmacy Plus program. I think this is the right approach. It provides a shorter moratorium that allows the Finance Committee to act and preserves oversight on fraud and abuse at the Department of Health and Human Services. I will work with Senator Durbin and members of the Appropriations Committee to ensure that this version stays in the final bill. Once again, I thank Chairman Byrd for his help in reaching this good outcome. And I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Retail Improvements

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Elizabeth Goitein, a detailee from the Department of Justice in Senator Feingold's Judiciary Committee office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this session of Congress.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in Ecclesiastes, the Preacher warns: The race is not to the swift, or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise, or wealth to the brilliant, or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all. America is used to being the swiftest. We are used to being the strongest. America has become used to winning the race. We have become used to receiving the cream of the world's wealth. But we would do well to heed the warning of Ecclesiastes, for time and chance will happen to us, as well. New global competitors have entered the race. Over time, they are growing stronger and more learned. America cannot leave winning the race to chance. We must redouble our speed. We must redouble our learning if we are not to fall behind. That is why I started in June of 2005 delivering a series of addresses on America's economic leadership. That is why, during the last Congress and this one as well, I have introduced a series of bills addressing American competitiveness. Those bills dealt with education, with energy, with trade, research, and savings. That is why much of the work of the Finance Committee this Congress this year will address America's economic competitiveness. The Finance Committee will shortly mark up education tax incentives. We will follow with tax incentives for cleaner and more renewable energy. This year we intend to extend trade adjustment assistance, and we hope to address small business health concerns as well. Each of these bills will help American businesses remain the world's leaders. The bill before us will help, and it will help a lot. The bill before us will promote excellence in education, technology, and science. I hope to contribute a series of amendments to this bill. Each, I believe, will bolster America's economic competitiveness. A noted MIT scholar once commented that: The ability to learn faster than your competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage. Having an educated workforce able to learn and adapt is a cornerstone of a competitive agenda. My first amendment thus encourages States to incorporate 21st century learning skills into their curriculum. This amendment would help our school systems teach skills to America's students that will best prepare them for tomorrow's economy. America faces a world more integrated, more interdependent, and more competitive than ever. It is our challenge to succeed in this environment. It is our challenge to leave our children and grandchildren with an economy that is better than the one which we inherited. We must meet this challenge. Meeting this challenge starts with addressing education in a new way. This bill is just a beginning. We must change the way we look at education. As policymakers, we tend to look at our education challenge like a multiple choice test. We want to choose between a few simple options--more science and math classes, more AP classes, or better teachers. But the answers are not as simple as ``A,'' ``B,'' or ``C.'' We must look at our challenge as if it were a math proof. We must think through every step, to reach the end result. The process is as important as the outcome. The outcome must be appropriate for today's needs, but the outcome must also be appropriate for the needs of the future. One hundred years from now--even 10 years from now--our society will be very different from what we see today. If we find the right solution, our students will excel in school. If we find the right solution, our graduates will be ready to enter the workforce. If we find the right solution, America will retain its economic leadership. But if we look only for simple options, we may never reach a solution. My first amendment will assist in the process of developing these solutions. My amendment will encourage school systems to think first and plan early. My amendment will encourage States to look at the big picture. My amendment will encourage States to look at education comprehensively. My amendment encourages States to incorporate 21st century learning skills into the States' education plan. Twenty-first century learning skills emphasize learning skills, collaboration, and communication skills. Our students must know science and math, but more importantly, our students must excel in problem-solving and critical thinking skills. Our students must excel in financial, economic, and business literacy. It is these skills that students today will need to be successful tomorrow. Our students must also be able to communicate effectively. Twenty- first century skills also include language learning. This bill sets aside funding for foreign language programs, but in many rural areas like Montana there are not enough teachers. The way to help solve this problem is through distance learning. That is why I also worked hard to include in the bill a provision to allow language funds to go to programs that use distance learning. I am proud of programs such as the U.S. Arabic Distance Learning Network out of Montana State University. This program uses interactive video classrooms to allow two-way communication between the professor and students. This innovative solution is helping students to acquire important language skills. We must look for more ways to be creative in our education methods. Our schools must adapt to new challenges. Our students must begin to learn the skills that companies need today, and students must learn the skills that companies anticipate needing tomorrow. This bill is a piece of the process in solving the proof. I will continue working on this issue and I encourage my colleagues to do so as well. Many of the proposals in these amendments and this legislation are good solutions for serious problems, but addressing our problems is not enough. We must also improve the way we identify them. We must improve our diagnosis. Getting the right diagnosis is especially important to the most dynamic sector of our economy--the services sector. Our economy has evolved from agriculture and manufacturing to services. Services industries today comprise 80 percent of our economy. Since 1990, private services industries have added over 22 million jobs. In our international trade picture, services are a bright spot. Where we so often see deficits, America has a surplus in services exports. To keep this sector vigorous in a global market, we must track its health and development. But we don't. Today, the Bureau of Economic Analysis does not produce annual, State-by-State, sector-specific services export data. Tracking this kind of export data is critical to knowing where our strengths and our weakness lie. These data are critical to knowing where jobs are being created and how to build on those successes. These data are equally critical to knowing where jobs are being lost, and to how we can best help those workers. That is why I am offering an amendment to fund a program in the Bureau of Economic Analysis to study services exports in detail, annually, thoroughly, on a State-by-State basis. We know too little about this sector of our economy and its standing internationally. This amendment would remedy that. I also have amendments to improve America's energy research. My amendment would double funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science. That office is the largest supporter of physical sciences research in America. It would provide more than 40 percent of total funding in this area nationwide. The Office oversees a broad range of energy-related research, including that related to renewable energy. For example, the Office of Science funds research and development projects at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, or NREL. NREL is the Nation's primary lab for renewable energy and energy efficiency R&D. The Finance Committee has heard testimony from two NREL representatives this year--Dr. Dan Arvizu, director of the lab, and Dr. Robert Farrington, manager of the lab's research on advanced vehicles. Both of these individuals are very impressive. I believe strongly that we must support their work. Unfortunately, that support has been lacking in recent years. In January, the New York Times outlined NREL's budget challenges. The Times pointed out that: Money flowing into the nation's primary laboratory for developing renewable fuels is actually less than it was at the beginning of the Bush administration. The lab got a bit of a boost after that story was published in January, but the administration's 2008 budget still plans a 3 percent cut for the lab. We can fix that by doubling the Office of Science's budget over the next 5 years. This injection of resources would provide badly needed funding for NREL and the other national labs. The Office of Science would receive $3.8 billion for 2007, a small increase over last year's amount. My amendment would increase the Federal commitment to DOE's Office of Science to $8 billion by 2011. That is double what the office receives now, and that is more than a 50 percent increase over what is called for in the underlying bill. This amendment is consistent with a recommendation of the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan group of 20 of the Nation's leading energy experts. Last week, the commission recommended doubling Federal spending on energy-technology R&D. But simply increasing funds for DOE's Office of Science is not enough. We also need to establish a new office of research outside DOE. My amendment to establish ARPA-E would do just that. I am very pleased that the underlying bill proposes an Advanced Research Projects Authority--Energy, or ARPA-E. The National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine joined to form the Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century. Norm Augustine chaired the committee. The committee recommended creating an ARPA-E: Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy. The new agency would be modeled on DARPA--the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency--in the Department of Defense. Among the revolutionary technologies that DARPA has developed are the Internet and stealth technology for aircraft. The Augustine Committee recommended that ARPA-E be designed to conduct transformative, out-of-the-box energy research. In the last Congress, and earlier this year, I introduced legislation to create an ARPA-E. The bill before us today proposes a variation on my legislation by creating an ``authority'' within the Department of Energy, instead of an agency. My amendment would move the ``authority'' out of the DOE and establish it as an agency, and my amendment would flesh out some of the details of the office. My amendment proposes that ARPA-E be a small agency with a total of 250 people. A minimum of 180 of them would be technical staff. A director of the agency and four deputies would lead ARPA-E. My amendment proposes that ARPA-E be funded at $300 million in fiscal year 2008, ramping up to $2.0 billion in 2012. With gasoline again rising to $3 a gallon and increased concerns about global warming, I believe we need to establish the most muscular ARPA-E possible. That is why my amendment frees the agency from the bureaucratic restrictions of the DOD, and that is why my amendment would elevate the status of the agency by establishing a direct reporting link to the President. The underlying bill has taken a critical step forward by proposing an ARPA-E. It is now up to the Senate and House to make this terrific idea a reality to address the issues of energy security, energy supply, and global warming. By advancing amendments like these, we can help to ensure America's economic leadership. Let us thereby help to ensure that America's business remains the swiftest. Let us ensure that our economy remains strong. Let us not leave our economic future to time and chance. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Dr. Mary Stranahan. Dr. Stranahan is a retired medical doctor and an active philanthropist who lives in Arlee, MT. Arlee is a small town in western Montana located on the Flathead Indian Reservation in Lake County. Arlee is a place of incredible physical beauty, like so many places in Montana. But amid the beauty are poverty and economic challenges. Lake County ranks as one of the poorest counties in Montana. In her years as a practicing family physician in Lake County and on the reservation, Mary saw first-hand the relationship between limited economic opportunity and family health. Since retiring from medicine, Dr. Stranahan has become immersed in the survival and success of local agriculture and mainstreet businesses. She knows agriculture and small business play a vital role in healthy rural communities. Over the years, Dr. Stranahan has, as a concerned individual, been a core donor for innumerable charities and non-profits in Montana. But this year Dr. Stranahan is taking her philanthropic commitment to a whole new level in chartering the Montana Good Works Foundation. This new Montana foundation will work to focus Dr. Stranahan's grants and donations on social justice, rural community development, and sustainable business development in Montana. In one of the Montana Good Works Foundation's first gifts, Dr. Stranahan has shown extraordinary leadership by giving $1.42 million to the Montana Community Development Corporation. This gift kicks off MCDC's campaign to grow its loan fund for Montana businesses to $15 million and it empowers MCDC to expand its business coaching services. Dr. Stranahan has further committed to help Montana Community Development Corporation recruit more philanthropists to this important effort to build entrepreneurship in Montana. I commend Dr. Stranahan for her great leadership in rural philanthropy. The Big Sky Institute reports that rural States like Montana are on the short end of a great disparity in foundation grant- making. The Big Sky Institute found that, adjusting for population, foundation grants to rural States are less than a fifth of the national average. After adjusting for population, foundation grants to rural States are less than a tenth of the amount received in the State of New York. Last May, I spoke to the annual conference of the Council on Foundations in Pittsburgh, PA. I challenged foundations to double their grant-making to rural States within 5 years. And I am working with leaders in the nonprofit and foundations communities to convene a rural philanthropy conference in Missoula this August. I am proud of the progress we are making in rural philanthropy. And I look forward to working together with Montana philanthropists like Dr. Stranahan to keep the ball rolling. I applaud Dr. Stranahan for the vision and the scope of her philanthropy. In particular, I commend her commitment to building rural entrepreneurs as a core philanthropic strategy. Dr. Stranahan is one of the new Montana leaders who are showing the world that Montana truly deserves its designation as the Treasure State. I recognize and commend Dr. Mary Stranahan for her substantial efforts on behalf of Montana's communities and Montana's future.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the Ensign amendment. Splitting the circuit would have detrimental effects on the West--in particular, in my home State of Montana. Splitting the Ninth Circuit would eliminate uniformity of law in the West. States sharing common concerns such as the environment and Native American rights could end up with different rules of law. This would create confusion and cause serious problems between States. And splitting the Ninth Circuit would impose huge new costs. A split would require new Federal funds for courthouses and administrative buildings. Existing judicial facilities are just not equipped for a new circuit. The Administrative Office estimates these start-up costs to be $96 million, and then $16 million in annual recurring costs under the proposed split. The judiciary budget is already stretched thin. The creation of a new and costly bureaucracy to administer the new circuit would just add to our growing deficit. And this proposal does not have the support of the people whom it will most directly affect. Judges on the circuit oppose the split. Members of the State bars affected by the split oppose it. And almost 100 Federal, State, and local organizations oppose splitting the Ninth Circuit. Only 3 of the 26 active judges on the Ninth Circuit favor splitting the circuit. Many State bars oppose this proposal including Alaska, Washington, Nevada, Hawaii, and Arizona. Even the Federal Bar Association and the appellate section of the Oregon bar feel strongly that we should not split the Ninth Circuit. The State Bar of Montana does not support this proposal. The Montana bar unanimously passed a resolution opposing division of the Ninth Circuit. We ought to be listening to the people on the ground who deal with this issue every day, not creating hardship from our offices in DC. Let's be frank here. The motivation behind splitting the circuit is political. It is an attempt to control the decisions of the judiciary by rearranging the bench. The judiciary is supposed to be an independent branch of government. It must remain so. Splitting the circuit is not the right thing to do for Montana. It is not the right thing to do for the country.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mary Baker and Brett Youngerman, detailees with the Finance Committee, be granted floor privileges for the consideration of the prescription drug bill.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in Shakespeare's time, the poor had little access to medicine. In ``Measure for Measure,'' one of Shakespeare's plays, he wrote: The miserable have no other medicine, but only hope. With the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, we sought to give America's seniors, especially America's poorest seniors, something more than only hope. We sought to ensure that seniors had access to the affordable medicine they need. When we crafted the Medicare drug benefit, we could only imagine how it would work. We really did not know. In some respects, our work was theoretical. We established a market-based approach in which any number of private insurers would compete to offer drug coverage. That was the foundation. Even with a market-based design, we had tremendous concern that the market would not be able to offer drug coverage. As the former CMS Administrator said at the time: Private drug plans do not yet exist in nature. We were starting from scratch. In an abundance of caution, we went a step further than merely creating a market for drug coverage. We took what I am now convinced was a step too far: We tied the hands of the Secretary of Health and Human Services with what has come to be known as the ``noninterference clause.'' We eliminated the Government's ability to intervene to get fair drug prices for seniors. Today, we consider a bill to repeal a portion of that noninterference clause created by the Medicare prescription drug program. What is the noninterference clause? The noninterference clause prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from ``interfering'' with the negotiations between drug manufacturers and pharmacies and drug plan sponsors. Essentially, this provision bans the Secretary from doing anything that would affect the prices Medicare pays for drugs. Another prong of this noninterference clause prohibits the Secretary from creating a single, national formulary and from setting prices under the Medicare drug benefit. The legislation before us today, however, leaves that part alone. Those prohibitions remain. Now the Medicare drug benefit is in its second year. Our theory that private plans would offer and deliver Medicare drug coverage proved accurate. It is working for millions of Americans. It is giving them more than just hope. But it is not perfect, and in some cases it still may not be giving seniors affordable drugs. We are here today because we need to do all we can to make sure it works well for everyone. Looking at the program today, the noninterference clause is an unnecessary hindrance. It ties the Secretary's hands. Free markets are usually the best solution. But markets sometimes fail. In this program, American taxpayers are spending more than $50 billion a year to deliver a prescription drug benefit to seniors. We may on occasion need the Secretary to roll up his sleeves and get more involved in the program. We want Secretaries of HHS to be able to use the tools at their disposal. We want them to help shape the drug benefit into a strong and thriving program. It is time to untie the Secretary's hands. The bill before us today does not change the market-based approach of the drug benefit. It does not change that at all. This bill is not the first step toward Government-run health care, nothing close to it. This bill is not the first step toward a single-payer health care system. No way. Rather, the bill before us today aims simply to improve and strengthen the drug benefit. It is our way of fulfilling our promise to provide Medicare beneficiaries with access to affordable medicines. We should not allow the Government to sit idly by while seniors continue to pay high prices or even go without their medicine. That would be a dereliction of duty. Congress created this benefit to give seniors access to affordable drug coverage. Now we need to make sure the prices seniors pay at the pharmacy are low, too. That is the goal of this legislation. So let us build on the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. Let us seek to give America's seniors something more than only hope. Let us ensure that seniors truly have access to the affordable medicine they need. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 123, I voted ``nay.'' It was my intention to vote ``yea.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote as it will not affect the outcome.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to talk to you about an important resolution that the Senate adopted today: the Asbestos Awareness Week resolution. This resolution recognizes the first week in April as National Asbestos Awareness Week. This resolution acknowledges the dangerous nature of asbestos. Importantly, it gives tribute to hundreds of thousands of people who have died from exposure. To me, this resolution is very personal Deaths from exposure to asbestos are common in my home State of Montana--all too common. Libby, MT is a small community in the western part of Montana. Libby is a very unique place. It is surrounded by the beauty and splendor of the Cabinet Mountains. But it is also plagued with sickness and disease. The extent of asbestos contamination in Libby, the number of people who are sick, the amount of people who have died from asbestos exposures just staggering. The community of Libby suffers from asbestos related diseases at 40 to 60 times higher than the rest of the country. Folks in Libby are diagnosed with mesothelioma, the deadly form of cancer from asbestos, at 100 times higher than the average rate. Mesothelioma recently took the life of a very dear friend of mine from Libby--Les Skramstad. Just a few weeks ago, I came to the floor to talk about Les and how he was an outspoken advocate for Libby. Until the day he died, Les worked tirelessly to share his story and the story of Libby's quiet emergency. The first night I met Les in January of 2000, he challenged me to help all those in Libby suffering from asbestos-related diseases. Les challenged me ``to do something.'' He said: Max, please, as a man like me--as someone's father too, as someone's husband, as someone's son, help me. Help us. Help us make this town safe for Libby's sons and daughters not even born yet. They should not suffer my fate too. I was a miner and breathed that dust in. Everyday I carried that deadly dust home on my clothes. I took it into our house and I contaminated my own wife and each of my babies with it too. I just don't know how to live with the pain of what I have done to them. If we can make something good come of this, maybe I'll stick around to see that, maybe that could make this worthwhile. I told him I would do all that I could, that I wouldn't back down, and that I wouldn't give up. Les accepted my offer and then pointed his finger and said to me: I'll be watching, Senator. I have kept my promise to Les and I have worked hard to help people in Libby. I will continue to do all I can to help Libby. I know that now even though Les is not with us today he is still watching. Les is my inspiration. Because of Les's work and other advocates in Libby, we launched the Center for Asbestos Related Diseases in Libby--called the CARD clinic. CARD has screened and provided health care to hundreds of Libby residents. Screening is an essential part of making sure people get the help they need. Spreading the word about asbestos exposure is also vital to ensure that people who are sick get the treatment they deserve. The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization is a leader in this fight. They work tirelessly to advocate on behalf of asbestos victims so that thousands more in the future should not suffer the same fate. Along with the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, others in the Libby community such as Gayla Benefield and Dr. Brad Black have worked to educate people about the dangers of asbestos exposure. Then there are also those who have left Libby, but continue to advocate on behalf of asbestos victims such as Margy Urnberg and Kenny and Karen Moss, all former residents of Libby and remarkable volunteers. An asbestos awareness week will help spread the word about the deadliness of these fibers and bring relief to those who suffer from asbestos-related diseases. I will continue to fight for those like Les, whose lives have been taken by asbestos. I made a promise to Les and I won't stop until I have fulfilled that promise.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the senior Senator from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, in support of amendment No. 680. The substance of this amendment is what the Senate passed by a 94-to-3 vote as the minimum wage and small business tax bill on February 1. This amendment would thus extend to hard-working Americans a long- overdue increase in the minimum wage. It is long past time when Congress should have increased the minimum wage. Now some worry that an increase in the minimum wage would burden small businesses. Smaller businesses employ a disproportionate share of workers earning the minimum wage. Representatives of small businesses have therefore argued that any increase in the minimum wage should be accompanied by tax incentives targeted for small businesses in order to lower their costs. Small business is particularly important in rural States like Montana. Rural communities generally do not have large employers. Rural families rely on small businesses for jobs. The Finance Committee has jurisdiction over taxes. The committee held a hearing on January 10 entitled ``Tax Incentives for Businesses in Response to a Minimum Wage Increase.'' The committee heard from a variety of witnesses, including labor economists, small business owners, and tax experts. Following that hearing, the committee held a markup on January 17. The committee reported an original bill called the Small Business and Work Opportunity Act of 2007. That bill is a revenue-neutral bill containing a number of tax incentives for small businesses and businesses that hire minimum wage workers. The committee favorably reported the bill by unanimous voice vote. And the majority leader included that bill in its entirety in his amendment to the House-passed Fair Minimum Wage Act. That bill passed the Senate on February 1. Now the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and I have included that bill in its entirety in our amendment to the House-passed supplemental appropriations bill, the U.S. Troops Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act. The small business tax provisions included in this amendment will help small businesses to succeed. These provisions will spur investment and thus create jobs. They will provide greater opportunity for workers looking for a job. They all enjoy strong support. 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 amendment would help business owners to afford these large purchases for their businesses. To do so, the amendment 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. In 2007, small business owners may deduct up to $112,000 of equipment expenses. 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 amendment would also allow small business owners to quickly recover the cost of improvements to their establishments through extension and expansion of the 15-year straight-line depreciation period for leaseholds and restaurant improvements. Without this provision, they would have to depreciate over the course of 39 years. Allowing retailers and restaurants to use a 15-year straight-line depreciation period would help entrepreneurs who open a business or remodel their property. The entrepreneur's investment could be recovered over a period of time more closely reflecting wear and tear. The amendment would extend the 15-year recovery period for leasehold and restaurant improvements. The amendment would also broaden the provision to allow retail owners and new restaurants to take advantage of this shortened depreciation period. The amendment would also help 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 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 amendment would extend WOTC for 5 years, and the amendment would expand the credit to make it available to employers who hire veterans disabled after 9/11. As of July 2006, nearly 20,000 members of our Armed Forces were wounded in action in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Many of these soldiers are now permanently disabled. Many do not know what they are going to do. We need to help these young men and women. A modest tax incentive to help them get back into the workforce is one place to start. The amendment would simplify the way that small businesses keep records for tax purposes. The cash method of accounting is often the easiest method of accounting. Allowing small business to use the cash method reduces the administrative and tax compliance burden of these businesses. The amendment would let more businesses take advantage of this method. Businesses with gross receipts up to $10 million would be able to use the cash method. The amendment helps small businesses by modifying S corporation rules. These modifications reduce the effect of what some call the ``sting tax.'' These modifications improve the viability of community banks. Senator Grassley, members of the Finance Committee, and I have worked to develop a balanced package, and I believe that we have succeeded. The language included in the amendment is a responsible package that will ensure the continued growth and success of small businesses. We have also paid for it. Most of the offsets are proposals that the Senate has supported several times before. The offsets include a proposal to end future tax benefits for abusive sale in/lease out tax shelters, or SILOs. These deals use foreign tax exempt entities to generate sham tax deductions. Even after Congress shut these deals down in 2004, some taxpayers continue to take excessive, unwarranted depreciation deductions on German sewer systems and the like. The IRS says that it has 1,500 of these deals under audit, involving billions, yes, billions, of dollars. The offsets include doubling fines, penalties, and interest on taxes owed as a result of using certain abusive offshore financial arrangements to avoid paying taxes. Taxpayers who hide their money from the IRS through offshore credit cards and other shady financial arrangements need to get the message that this Congress is serious about ending these abuses. The offsets include closing corporate loopholes for companies who reinvented themselves as foreign corporations to avoid paying tax here in America. In March of 2002, Senator Grassley and I made it clear that those who put profits ahead of patriotism did so at their own peril. The amendment would treat those who moved offshore after that date like a U.S. company, and the amendment would make those companies pay U.S. taxes. The hard-working American taxpayers whom we are trying to help in this amendment should not have to pay more in taxes because some taxpayers are abusing the tax system through tax shelters. They also should not have to bear the burden of civil settlements and punitive damages paid by companies who engage in questionable behavior. These are sound tax policy changes. Let us finally enact an increase in the minimum wage, and let us also pass this useful package of tax benefits to help America's small businesses. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on April 11, the Finance Committee is going to be holding a hearing on Medicare Advantage plans and other providers' plans that affect Medicare. We want to do this right. We want to do this in a very thoughtful, considerate way. There are Medicare Advantage plans that are doing a lot of good work. That is clear. Certainly, the Finance Committee, of which Senator Hatch is a member--and we have the April 11 hearing--is going to deal with this issue. I urge Members to do this the right way, and the right way is to figure out what to do generally with all Medicare providers, including managed care. Again, there are managed care companies that are very good and provide benefits for seniors. Dental has already been mentioned by the good Senator from Utah. The more thoughtful way is to not hamstring the committee by preventing the committee from making any changes to these programs. Rather, let's be thoughtful, flexible. I urge Members not to approve this amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the underlying budget resolution expands SCHIP coverage. This amendment goes the other direction; it restricts coverage. It creates a false choice saying we will take away here, we will give there. The net effect of it is it restricts coverage for kids. It is similar to--it is not exactly the same as, but it is similar to the Cornyn amendment on SCHIP, which we defeated with a vote of 38 to 59. The long and short of it is, this does restrict SCHIP benefits. I urge us not to go in the direction of restricting SCHIP coverage. I want to actually go in the other direction and expand. I urge that we not adopt this amendment.