Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am honored to speak to you today about the wonderful work being done in a school in my home State--Big Sky High School in Missoula, MT. Big Sky High School is a leader in science education and a wonderful example of how creativity and innovation can prepare students for the 21st century. To the students, teachers, parents, and administrators at Big Sky High School, I commend you for your dedication and imagination. Big Sky High School should be an example to schools all over the country of what we can do if we make a real commitment to teaching our students the skills necessary to keep America competitive in the global economy. Big Sky's science programs emphasize real-world applications and collaboration. For example, in the elective ``Advanced Problems in Science,'' students work on research projects and learn how to document their results and present them to the community. Many of these projects are featured in science fairs and other competitions, giving students experience and connecting them to the scientific community. Science teacher Jim Harkins, who has taught at Big Sky for 24 years, is an example of how a great teacher can inspire students to go into the sciences. Let me tell you about Jim's goals for science class in his own words. ``I try to tell the students that the classroom, text book setting is not real science,'' he said. ``Science is not learned in books while sitting at desks. In this class, Advanced Problems in Science, our goal is to simulate their curiosity in a real-life science setting. This program provides Montana students with competitiveness on national and international levels.'' To see the success of this program, you need to look no further than the students themselves. Big Sky alumnus Jayce Getz was an active participant in these science programs and he was recently honored with one of only 30 mathematical sciences postdoctoral research fellowships from the National Science Foundation. Jayce will begin a professorship at Princeton next fall. Jayce attributes some of his current success to his participation in Big Sky's science program. ``Kids in Missoula, Montana, can and do get involved with important research in the sciences,'' he said. ``The trick is to get started early on.'' Yet at Big Sky, kids do start early. The halls are filled with the future scientific leaders of America. Students study the genetic code of a cyanobacterial strain and test sail designs in wind tunnels by using an innovative interdisciplinary approach. By nurturing the curiosity and creativity of these students, Big Sky teachers like Jim Harkins ensure America's youth are given the education and tools necessary to succeed in the 21st century. I applaud Jim and his students. They are examples of what makes Montana's school system the best in the Nation. To Mr. Harkins and students of Big Sky High School, I extend my congratulations.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, energy is once again one of the top two or three domestic issues facing the Congress this year. Prices for gasoline, heating oil, electricity, and natural gas have soared in recent years, hitting working families hard. Our energy security has been threatened on many fronts: We have seen a terrorist attack on Saudi Arabian oil facilities, oil workers kidnapped in Nigeria, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez threatened to cut off our supply of oil from his country, and some question whether Iran's role as an oil supplier keeps other countries from properly addressing Iran's nuclear proliferation threat. Recently we learned that Russia and Iran are talking about creating an OPEC-like organization for natural gas--a cartel that could put even more pressure on natural gas prices. Energy provides one of America's greatest challenges for the 21st century. Our economy has been dependent on oil and coal for about 100 years. And since World War II, natural gas has become part of the equation. Will we continue to rely on these energy sources for the next 100 years? The cost of energy will profoundly affect the future competitiveness of the American economy. As the Chinese and Indian economies grow, so will their demand for energy. And that will add further upward pressure to energy prices. Global climate change is another issue that demands that we take a fresh look at our energy future. While we address the issue of energy security, we must also keep an eye on the effect that new energy development will have on carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. We are essentially trapped in an energy box. It is a box characterized by high imports, wildly fluctuating prices for oil and natural gas, and environmental danger. As a Nation, we must experiment with ways to break out of that box. To break out, we need an energy research effort modeled after the Manhattan project, or the Apollo mission to the moon. America has a brilliant record of gathering the best minds. We have consistently met challenges that at first seemed to be impossible. During World War II, the Manhattan project brought together brilliant physicists and engineers to build an atomic bomb in 3 short years. And after President Kennedy described his vision to a joint session of Congress in May of 1961, the Apollo space program put a man on the moon in just 8 years. Looking back, these achievements look stunning. Both projects started out with no guarantee of success. Each could have ended in utter failure. Yet because of the talent, ingenuity, and focus of creative minds, they both succeeded. Breaking out of the energy box poses a similar challenge. Success is not guaranteed. But we have got to give it our best shot. Today I am reintroducing legislation to create an ARPA-E, Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy. My legislation would create a new energy research agency to help our nation face the challenges of a newly competitive global economy. It will help us to move into a new energy future. We have the greatest research scientists on the planet. We have the most technically-talented workforce in the world. But we do not have the vigor that we need in energy research. Energy research is a backwater, compared to other research efforts in biotechnology, medicine, computers, and defense-oriented projects. With the Manhattan project and the Apollo space program, America proved that we can gather the best talent for a focused mission and succeed. It is time that we began a similar effort on energy. We need to create a new agency to initiate cutting-edge, innovative energy research and development aimed at taking us to a new energy future. Doing so is essential to our effort to improve our economic competitiveness. The new agency is 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. DARPA has been a tremendous success. 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. Based on DARPA's achievements, the committee recommended the creation of an ARPA-E: Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy. This was one of a number of recommendations that the committee made in its impressive 2005 report on the future competitive challenges that America faces. The committee recommended that ARPA-E be designed to conduct transformative, out-of-the-box energy research. My bill 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. I propose that ARPA- E be funded at $300 million in fiscal year 2008, $600 million in 2009, $1.1 billion in 2010, $1.5 billion in 2011, and $2.0 billion in 2012. We would require that the staff have a technical background. The agency would use the Experimental Personnel Authority designed for DARPA. That authority authorizes higher salaries than for typical Federal employees, and faster hiring, so that the agency could get to work quickly. To keep the intense, innovative focus that we want, technical staff would be limited to 3 to 4 years at the agency. Managers would be limited to 4 to 6 years. The director could give both groups extended terms of employment if the director so chose. For contracts, the agency would use the DARPA procedure. That procedure allows more flexible contracting arrangements than are normally possible under the Federal Acquisition Regulations. To ensure that ARPA-E would conduct innovative research, 75 percent of research projects initiated by ARPA-E would not be peer reviewed. The ARPA-E would be authorized to award cash prizes to encourage and accelerate energy research accomplishments. Finally, the bill would require a report by the end of fiscal year 2008 on whether ARPA-E would need its own energy research lab. Congress enacted an important companion piece to ARPA-E last December in the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. That law extended the credit for electricity from renewable resources, added $400 million to the Clean Renewable Energy Bond program, extended the deduction for energy efficient buildings and the credit for energy efficient homes, and provided incentives for cellulosic biomass ethanol facilities. On the energy agenda this year is consideration of President Bush's proposal to increase Federal targets for use of renewable and alternative fuels. And additional tax incentives to encourage the development and use of alternative energy are being contemplated. We are seeing exciting new efforts in America to strengthen our energy competitiveness. We need to build on this foundation by creating an aggressive energy research agency that will push the limits of new technology and discover alternative energy sources. America has massive coal reserves. So coal gasification is receiving greater attention. Gasification involves breaking down coal under heat and pressure to create synthetic natural gas. We must address the environmental issues. But if this technology can be improved, then America will be able to take a huge step toward energy independence. There are exciting developments in wind energy. In Montana, the Judith Gap Wind Farm has been generating power at full capacity, using 90 wind turbines. Each turbine can produce enough electricity for roughly 400 homes. The entire farm can produce the electricity needed to supply 300,000 customers. And my State ranks in the top 15 States in the Nation for wind power capacity. Nationwide, wind power generating capacity increased 27 percent in 2006. Fusion is another possible area where aggressive research could lead to huge payoffs. Continuing research will help us to determine whether energy production through fusion is a practical option. Ethanol is also gaining as an alternative energy option. The Nation's first cellulosic ethanol pilot facility has opened in Jennings, Louisiana. This 1.4 million gallons-per-year, demonstration-scale facility will produce cellulosic ethanol from sugarcane plant residue and specially-bred energy cane by the end of 2007. There are also exciting developments in nanotechnology, solar power, energy-efficient materials, biomass, and green buildings. All of these are examples of possible directions for our Nation's energy future. But we need a more aggressive and focused research and development effort to push these alternatives. And we need an effort to create scientific breakthroughs to supplement existing technologies. We have got to give it our best shot. As President Franklin Roosevelt said, we must conduct ``bold, persistent experimentation.'' Our economic security is at stake. Our ability to compete in the new world economy is at stake. ARPA-E will help us to move forward on existing technologies. It will help us to find new technologies that are not even imaginable today. I urge my Colleagues to look closely at this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, energy is once again one of the top two or three domestic issues facing the Congress this year. Prices for gasoline, heating oil, electricity, and natural gas have soared in recent years, hitting working families hard. Our energy security has been threatened on many fronts: We have seen a terrorist attack on Saudi Arabian oil facilities, oil workers kidnapped in Nigeria, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez threatened to cut off our supply of oil from his country, and some question whether Iran's role as an oil supplier keeps other countries from properly addressing Iran's nuclear proliferation threat. Recently we learned that Russia and Iran are talking about creating an OPEC-like organization for natural gas--a cartel that could put even more pressure on natural gas prices. Energy provides one of America's greatest challenges for the 21st century. Our economy has been dependent on oil and coal for about 100 years. And since World War II, natural gas has become part of the equation. Will we continue to rely on these energy sources for the next 100 years? The cost of energy will profoundly affect the future competitiveness of the American economy. As the Chinese and Indian economies grow, so will their demand for energy. And that will add further upward pressure to energy prices. Global climate change is another issue that demands that we take a fresh look at our energy future. While we address the issue of energy security, we must also keep an eye on the effect that new energy development will have on carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. We are essentially trapped in an energy box. It is a box characterized by high imports, wildly fluctuating prices for oil and natural gas, and environmental danger. As a Nation, we must experiment with ways to break out of that box. To break out, we need an energy research effort modeled after the Manhattan project, or the Apollo mission to the moon. America has a brilliant record of gathering the best minds. We have consistently met challenges that at first seemed to be impossible. During World War II, the Manhattan project brought together brilliant physicists and engineers to build an atomic bomb in 3 short years. And after President Kennedy described his vision to a joint session of Congress in May of 1961, the Apollo space program put a man on the moon in just 8 years. Looking back, these achievements look stunning. Both projects started out with no guarantee of success. Each could have ended in utter failure. Yet because of the talent, ingenuity, and focus of creative minds, they both succeeded. Breaking out of the energy box poses a similar challenge. Success is not guaranteed. But we have got to give it our best shot. Today I am reintroducing legislation to create an ARPA-E, Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy. My legislation would create a new energy research agency to help our nation face the challenges of a newly competitive global economy. It will help us to move into a new energy future. We have the greatest research scientists on the planet. We have the most technically-talented workforce in the world. But we do not have the vigor that we need in energy research. Energy research is a backwater, compared to other research efforts in biotechnology, medicine, computers, and defense-oriented projects. With the Manhattan project and the Apollo space program, America proved that we can gather the best talent for a focused mission and succeed. It is time that we began a similar effort on energy. We need to create a new agency to initiate cutting-edge, innovative energy research and development aimed at taking us to a new energy future. Doing so is essential to our effort to improve our economic competitiveness. The new agency is 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. DARPA has been a tremendous success. 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. Based on DARPA's achievements, the committee recommended the creation of an ARPA-E: Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy. This was one of a number of recommendations that the committee made in its impressive 2005 report on the future competitive challenges that America faces. The committee recommended that ARPA-E be designed to conduct transformative, out-of-the-box energy research. My bill 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. I propose that ARPA- E be funded at $300 million in fiscal year 2008, $600 million in 2009, $1.1 billion in 2010, $1.5 billion in 2011, and $2.0 billion in 2012. We would require that the staff have a technical background. The agency would use the Experimental Personnel Authority designed for DARPA. That authority authorizes higher salaries than for typical Federal employees, and faster hiring, so that the agency could get to work quickly. To keep the intense, innovative focus that we want, technical staff would be limited to 3 to 4 years at the agency. Managers would be limited to 4 to 6 years. The director could give both groups extended terms of employment if the director so chose. For contracts, the agency would use the DARPA procedure. That procedure allows more flexible contracting arrangements than are normally possible under the Federal Acquisition Regulations. To ensure that ARPA-E would conduct innovative research, 75 percent of research projects initiated by ARPA-E would not be peer reviewed. The ARPA-E would be authorized to award cash prizes to encourage and accelerate energy research accomplishments. Finally, the bill would require a report by the end of fiscal year 2008 on whether ARPA-E would need its own energy research lab. Congress enacted an important companion piece to ARPA-E last December in the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. That law extended the credit for electricity from renewable resources, added $400 million to the Clean Renewable Energy Bond program, extended the deduction for energy efficient buildings and the credit for energy efficient homes, and provided incentives for cellulosic biomass ethanol facilities. On the energy agenda this year is consideration of President Bush's proposal to increase Federal targets for use of renewable and alternative fuels. And additional tax incentives to encourage the development and use of alternative energy are being contemplated. We are seeing exciting new efforts in America to strengthen our energy competitiveness. We need to build on this foundation by creating an aggressive energy research agency that will push the limits of new technology and discover alternative energy sources. America has massive coal reserves. So coal gasification is receiving greater attention. Gasification involves breaking down coal under heat and pressure to create synthetic natural gas. We must address the environmental issues. But if this technology can be improved, then America will be able to take a huge step toward energy independence. There are exciting developments in wind energy. In Montana, the Judith Gap Wind Farm has been generating power at full capacity, using 90 wind turbines. Each turbine can produce enough electricity for roughly 400 homes. The entire farm can produce the electricity needed to supply 300,000 customers. And my State ranks in the top 15 States in the Nation for wind power capacity. Nationwide, wind power generating capacity increased 27 percent in 2006. Fusion is another possible area where aggressive research could lead to huge payoffs. Continuing research will help us to determine whether energy production through fusion is a practical option. Ethanol is also gaining as an alternative energy option. The Nation's first cellulosic ethanol pilot facility has opened in Jennings, Louisiana. This 1.4 million gallons-per-year, demonstration-scale facility will produce cellulosic ethanol from sugarcane plant residue and specially-bred energy cane by the end of 2007. There are also exciting developments in nanotechnology, solar power, energy-efficient materials, biomass, and green buildings. All of these are examples of possible directions for our Nation's energy future. But we need a more aggressive and focused research and development effort to push these alternatives. And we need an effort to create scientific breakthroughs to supplement existing technologies. We have got to give it our best shot. As President Franklin Roosevelt said, we must conduct ``bold, persistent experimentation.'' Our economic security is at stake. Our ability to compete in the new world economy is at stake. ARPA-E will help us to move forward on existing technologies. It will help us to find new technologies that are not even imaginable today. I urge my Colleagues to look closely at this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I think it is clear that the American people want the Senate to have a debate on this issue. There is no doubt about that. I very much hope that enough Senators, when we vote tomorrow, will vote to invoke cloture so we can do just that, have a debate. I think for the Senate to not vote to invoke cloture would be very irresponsible. I cannot for the life of me imagine why the Senate would not conduct that vote. I very much hope when we have that vote tomorrow that 60 Senators, more than 60 Senators vote in favor of cloture so the Senate can address one of the most fundamental issues that I think is on Americans' minds. I was going to go to Iraq tonight because I wanted to see firsthand what is going on. I wanted to talk to troops, talk to commanders. I wanted to talk to not only the American personnel but also the Iraqis. I wanted to determine, the best I could, the degree to which Prime Minister Maliki and the Iraqis are able to stand on their own two feet and do what they are supposed to do; that is, govern and run their own country. I am not going to go over tonight, obviously. I want to be here tomorrow and cast my vote so we can start debating. That is the right thing to do. Based upon what I see in the newspapers, what I see on television, based upon the comments of my colleagues who have recently been to Iraq, I am very disturbed. To put it simply, Iraq is a mess. It is a mess because the United States, to some degree, started it by invading the country and opened up Pandora's box and got the Shias and the Sunnis and the Kurds all stirred up. Now they are fighting each other. We did a good thing by toppling Saddam Hussein. That was the right thing to do. But we did not think through the consequences. We did not understand what we were doing as a country. We did not have an exit strategy. We did not know what the consequences of occupation would be. Certainly, the United States, with its very superior Armed Forces, can very easily occupy Iraq--Baghdad. In fact, the occupation was probably a little easier than many people anticipated. But when you go back and talk to generals, talk to defense personnel, talk to analysts, they all--many of them, many of them are very clear in saying that they advised the Pentagon not to go ahead and do this until we knew what we were doing once we got there. It would be a big mistake, many said, to proceed unless we knew what we were doing. Put simply, there was just no exit strategy. There was none whatsoever. I have read so many reports and quotes of so many generals advising us to not go into Iraq until we knew what we were doing that I am appalled, frankly, at how unprepared the United States was when it went in. All Americans, if they have any second thoughts about that statement I just made, they, too, would be appalled if they would read those same statements. They are all in the record. They are all in the public domain. I strongly urge people to read them and look at them. The key here, as has been stated by the Senator from Virginia, the senior Senator from Virginia, is: Can the Iraqis stand up on their own two feet? It is my belief that they are not standing up on their own two feet. Clearly, the continued civil war's death toll indicates that Iraq is not taking control of the situation. There are so many reports that the Iraqi Army is unfit and that they are not doing the job. There are questions about how well it is trained or is being trained. Clearly the answer is, it is not being trained. They are not doing a good job. My view is it doesn't make much sense to throw more troops, a modest number of more troops, at a failed policy. That is what it comes down to. The Iraqis aren't taking care of themselves, and if they aren't taking care of themselves, why should we take care of them? We have lost so many American lives, so many Montanans, young men and women who have been killed over there, and it makes no sense, in my judgment, to keep doing this. That is why I think we should vote on this resolution on Monday and, secondly, why I think the resolution should pass. We should not continue a failed policy. I don't know very many people who think the policy is working. Most think it has failed. So let's, as the U.S. Senate, make that statement. What do we do now? If it has failed, what do we do? I don't think anybody has a simple answer. There is no real silver bullet here. But I do think we need to give the Iraqis a set date and say to them: We are going to get out of here on this set date, and you need to know that. My fear is, if we don't do that, they are just going to keep thinking the United States is going to keep sending more troops and keep taking care of them. It is human nature for them to do so, to think that. That is why I believe we should give them a definite date we will start bringing our troops home. I also think we have to engage other countries in the region. We are not doing a good job of doing that. This administration says: Well, we can't talk to Iran; we shouldn't do that. We can't talk to Syria; we shouldn't do that. I don't understand that. It seems to me, if you want a solution, you have to talk to people. You have to talk to people who are involved. We are talking to the Saudis, we are talking to the Jordanians, the Israelis, and others in the region. That is good. But two very key players are Iran and Syria. In life, we talk to our friends, but we should also talk to our enemies. We don't have to agree with our enemies, but we should talk to them. When you start talking to people with whom you have disagreements, after a while you learn there may be a common assumption or two. After a while you might learn something that indicates there is progress. There might be a little bit of daylight once you start talking to somebody. You certainly aren't going to learn anything unless you talk to them. The stakes are so high and the consequences are so great, I strongly urge the administration to start talking to people. So what if the public policy was that we were not going to do that in the past. Don't be stubborn. Don't be too proud. Do what is right. Just try to talk to the people in the region so we can find some common solutions. I know it is not going to be easy. It will be very difficult. But I know of no other alternative--no other alternative--but to give them a date and say: we are out of here; by this certain date we are going to start repositioning troops elsewhere in the region. We should tell them that so they sober up more--not just Prime Minister Maliki but the other principals in the country--and realize they have to start getting their act together. As I said, we need to have some very serious negotiations with groups in the region and also with countries in the region so we can manage the situation as best we possibly can. This is one of the most serious issues I have confronted since I have been in the Senate in the last several years, and I commend my colleagues for addressing it so seriously. It is the right thing to do. But it is also the right thing to do to start debating this issue in the Senate. I think we will be doing the country a great service if we do. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, Saint Luke explains in his Gospel: The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath sent me to heal. Delivering care to the sick and injured is the Lord's work. To heal the sick at great risk to one's own safety reflects the best that we can be as the Lord's servants. I am here to honor three healers from my home State of Montana-- ambulance pilot Vince Kirol, paramedic and firefighter Paul Erikson, and registered nurse Darcy Doyle. These Montana heroes died tragically during an air rescue mission on February 6. Their deaths are a tremendous loss to their families, to Benefits Healthcare, and to all of Montana. These dedicated individuals were en route to Bozeman from Great Falls in dangerous weather to pick up a patient who had suffered a severe head injury that required immediate surgery. Every minute counted. The victim's injury had to be treated as quickly as possible. The longer it took to get him to the hospital, the worse his chances were for survival. The only way to get the patient the care he needed was by air transport. So the dependable air ambulance team at Benefits Healthcare was called. Vince, Paul, and Darcy responded to the call without hesitation and without concern for their own safety. They knew that somebody's life was hanging in the balance. This is the type of pressure-filled situation in which they have always operated. Montana is a large State, it is a beautiful State, with rural and isolated areas, where people who are injured may need immediate rescue, may need it right away, including air ambulance transportation to a trauma center. Unfortunately, there are not enough hospitals in Montana that can give the kind of care someone with severe injuries immediately needs. So-called level 1 hospitals have operating rooms, surgeons, and radiologists available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, waiting and ready for any patient with severe injuries who is brought in. There are no level 1 hospitals in Montana. Level 2 hospitals have the right facilities, but the doctors are not in the hospital around the clock to be available immediately when a patient arrives. There are only three level 2 trauma centers in Montana. It is very expensive to run hospitals and offer this high-level, specialized care. Only three hospitals in Montana--one in Missoula, one in Billings, and one in Great Falls--offer such services, so every patient who needs a trauma center has to go to one of these hospitals. This makes air ambulance transportation even more important, given Montana's 800-mile span and mountainous terrain. The Benefits medevac program provides 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week air ambulance transportation in Montana and the Northwest. Aircraft respond to isolated areas, accident scenes, and hospitals to bring patients to the regional emergency center as quickly as possible. These dedicated pilots, nurses, and paramedics who operate the Benefits medevac program provide honorable and essential services to Montana. The three Benefits professionals who lost their lives last week were trying to do just that. Darcy Dengel was a 27-year-old registered nurse. She joined Benefits in June 2001 and transferred to the emergency room in August 2003, where she also worked as a flight nurse. Her Benefits colleagues describe her as a bright, talented, and vibrant woman who loved her work because that work gave her a unique opportunity to help people in need. She was able to make a difficult time for a patient a little easier with her gentle care. She was to be married this spring to Rob Beal and is survived by parents Rich and Donna Dengel of Lewistown, MT. A long-time friend of Darcy Dengel's family described Darcy this way: She was a light . . . She didn't worry about danger in her work as a flight nurse. She wanted to help people. Paul Erickson was 33 years old and was the medic on the flight. Paul was a firefighter who worked on the Mercy Flight on his days off. He worked side by side with his wife Rachelle, who is the trauma coordinator for Benefits. They had a baby boy last July named Spencer Pilot. Assistant fire chief Steve Hester said this of his colleague: Paul considered it a service to the community. He was all about service to others. He knew that in rural Montana the only way you can get help sometimes is by air. Vince Kirol was 58 years old and had been flying for 40 years. He was a Mercy Flight fixed-wing pilot for 13 years after working for Metro Aviation in Shreveport, LA. He is survived by his wife Diana and two sons. Vince's pastor noted that he loved the mountains and he loved skiing and hiking with his sons. Billy Darnell, a friend of Vince's from his church, said this about him: He cared about people. That's why he loved his job. Darcy, Paul, and Vince selflessly put their lives at risk, transporting critically ill patients even in perilous weather conditions. They gave their own lives trying to save others. Their deaths are a tremendous loss to Montana. They were good servants, and they are heroes. Our hearts and our prayers go out to their families and to their friends. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I am grateful to the people of Montana for sending me to Washington as their Senator. I never forget whom I am here to represent. That is why my staff and I continually meet and talk with small business owners and CPAs from across the State. In anticipation of legislation to increase the minimum wage, I wanted to know how Montana's small businesses would be affected, I wanted to know what tax benefits would help small businesses, and I wanted to make sure that the Senate substitute to H.R. 2 would benefit Montanans. In particular, I thank James McHugh of Hammer Jack's in Missoula; Robert Walter of Walter's IGA and ACE in Sheridan; James Whaley of Whaley & Associates in Missoula; Ken Walsh of Ruby Valley National Bank in Twin Bridges; Micki Frederikson of Bingham, Campbell, Amrine, and Nolan in Missoula; Dan Vuckovich of Hamilton Misfeldt & Company in Great Falls; Ronald Yates, Jr. of Eide Bailly in Billings; David Johnson of Anderson Zurmuehlen & Co. in Helena; and Leslee Tschida of M.A.R.S. Stout in Missoula. I thank the men and women of Montana for their hard work, for their input into the formulation of this legislation, for their dedication to grow their companies, and for their confidence in me to deliver for Montana. Madam President, today the Senate will increase the minimum wage and provide tax relief to the Nation's small businesses. This important legislation will help millions of working Americans and those who employ them. It has been a decade since the last minimum wage increase. It is long overdue. I am very pleased we added a package of tax incentives for small businesses because many worry that a minimum wage increase will place a burden on small businesses. I want to take a moment to thank the individuals who worked so hard on the tax package. First, I want to thank my good friend Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Finance Committee, for his leadership on this bill. I also appreciate the hard work and cooperation of his staff, especially Kolan Davis, Mark Prater, Dean Zerbe, Elizabeth Paris, Chris Javens, Cathy Barre, Anne Freeman, Grant Menke, Stanford Swinton and Nick Wyatt. Second, I thank the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation and Senate Legislative Counsel for their service. I also want to recognize two staff members of the Joint Committee on Taxation who are leaving Congress, Patricia McDermott and Gray Fontenot. Patricia McDermott will be retiring from her position as legislation counsel with the Joint Committee of Taxation and moving to the private sector. Tricia was qualified plans branch chief in the Office of Associate Chief Counsel at IRS before she came to Joint Tax as a detailee in July of 2000. She joined the JCT staff when the detail ended in 2001. Tricia has advised us on many projects, but I especially want to thank her for the expertise and tireless effort she brought to our work on the Pension Protection Act of 2006. Tricia's knowledge--and her patience--were invaluable and will not be easily replaced. And we bid farewell to Gray Fontenot, an accountant with the Joint Tax Committee, who will be leaving this week to head to the private sector. Gray has been an essential adviser, particularly on the Katrina tax relief bills. As a native of New Orleans, whose extended family was personally affected by the hurricane, he truly understood the needs of the Gulf Zone, and his expertise was greatly appreciated by the members and staff of the Finance Committee. Finally, I thank my staff for their tireless effort and dedication, including Russ Sullivan, Bill Dauster, Pat Heck, Rebecca Baxter, Melissa Mueller, Judy Miller, Pat Bousliman, Ryan Abraham, Carol Guthrie, and Erin Shields. I also thank our dedicated fellows, Mary Baker, Thomas Louthan, and Sara Shepherd, and our talented interns, David Ashner, Larry Boyd, Sarah Butler, Gretchen Hector, Molly Keenan, and Ryan Majerus.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Heritage Conservation Extension Act of 2007, along with my good friend Senator Grassley from Iowa. As we all know, the country, and my home State of Montana, are losing precious agricultural and ranch lands at a record pace. While providing Montana and the Nation with the highest quality food and fiber, these farms and ranches also provide habitat for wildlife and the open spaces, land that many of us take for granted and assume will always be there. Montana has begun to recognize the importance of these lands. We currently have 1,573,411 acres covered by conservation easements. To some, that may seem like a large amount, but this is Montana, a State that covers 93,583,532 acres, making the conservation easements coverage a mere 1.68 percent of all of our lands. To assure that open space and habitat will be there for future generations, we must help our hardworking farmers and ranchers preserve this precious heritage and their way-of-life. Conservation easements have been tremendously successful in preserving open space and wildlife habitat. Last year, the Congress recognized this by providing targeted income tax relief to small farmers and ranchers who wish to make a charitable contribution of a qualified conservation easement. The provision allows eligible farmers and ranchers to increase the amounts of deduction that may be taken currently for charitable contributions of qualified conservation easements by raising the Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) limitations to 100 percent and extending the carryover period from 5 years to 15 years. In the case of all landowners, the AGI limitation would be raised from 30 percent to 50 percent. The Rural Heritage Conservation Extension Act of 2007 would make this allowable deduction permanent, building on the success of conservation easements. Our farmers and ranchers will be able to preserve their important agricultural and ranching lands for future generations, while continuing to operate their businesses. Landowners, conservationists, the Federal Government, and local communities are working together to preserve our precious natural resources. This legislation is vitally important to Montana, and to every other State in the Nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Massachusetts seeks recognition. I yield to him whatever time he would like to take.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I tip my hat to my good friend from Massachusetts. He is such a fighter and he is so correct in the statements he is making on behalf of the people who need this increase in the minimum wage. It is unconscionable that the Senate is delaying that increase. The House passed an increase. We have the same goal line, but we have a more circuitous route in getting there. The Senate is taking so much time in our way to get to the same goal line and raise the minimum wage. The Senator from Massachusetts is pricking our conscience to get this done quickly--now. I deeply compliment my good friend from Massachusetts. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, we are wondering what in the world is going on here. Let me share some thoughts on the schedule. We are seeking to arrange votes on two amendments by my colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl. We on our side of the aisle are ready to vote. We want to vote. It appears, though, that there are some objections on the other side of the aisle. I hope we can vote in the early afternoon. The objections, I understand, are conflicts that Senators have in the next couple of hours. I hope we can have at least one vote in the early afternoon. Probably after that, we will have another vote in relation to another Kyl amendment, and we are hoping those rollcall votes will be all that are left. An agreement is not entered into yet--we are working on it--but it is my hope we will have an early vote this afternoon and that then there is one more vote after that, on another Kyl amendment. That should help us to reach a conclusion on this bill, although I suspect a final vote will not be until tomorrow. That is the state of play right now. A couple words on the substance of the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl. This is only one of seven amendments he has offered. Like six of those seven, this one is not offset. We have already voted on one amendment by the Senator from Arizona. The remaining are not offset, and they would explode the budget deficit. The earlier amendment was soundly defeated on previous rollcall vote. It was offset by cutting education benefits for families who work in education institutions. That was defeated. The amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona now is similar to the one we have defeated. He would like to extend the section 179 expensing provision in the law. We are doing that in the bill. The bill increases the length of time in which the section 179 expense provision would be in law. We would enable that extension to occur until 2010. My Lord, this is 2007. That is not a permanent extension, but it is still, given the constraints we have, a reasonable extension. Everybody likes certainty. We would like a little more certainty in the Senate than we have. But it is still, I think, certainly already in the law and it is not good policy to adopt the amendment of the Senator from Arizona which would extend it for a couple more years but cost about $2 billion, which would be totally unpaid for. If there is one thing the American people want, it is for us to live within our means and not increase the deficit but to try to reduce the deficit. This amendment increases the deficit. We have voted on a similar amendment and it has been rejected. I hope the same is true here. At the appropriate time, I will move to table the amendment, and I hope we can get that accomplished in the early afternoon so we can move on to the next Kyl amendment and debate that and vote on that amendment as quickly as possible. I hope there are no more amendments. We are getting close. We all want to get a minimum wage bill passed, which is so important to so many people in our country. I think we ought to take the responsible action and dispose of these tax amendments that are not paid for and reject them and get on to final passage on minimum wage, which I hope will be tomorrow.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, before the Senate votes on the second amendment by Senator Kyl, the amendment is not offset, not paid for. It would add about $2 billion to our Federal deficit. The Senate rejected a Kyl amendment last week that was similar. I admire the Senator's persistence. He is a firm subscriber to the proverb that if at first you don't succeed, try, try again. I admire that very much. But there is also another reference, I think, from Ecclesiastes, that essentially there is a time and place for everything. This is not the time and this is not the place to pass this amendment, which adds $2 billion to the national deficit. I urge my colleagues to support the motion I am about to make, which is to table the amendment. The underlying amendment not only is not paid for, it is unbalanced. We had it packaged together here, and we voted on similar amendments, and it is time to get on with final passage of the minimum wage bill. That is what Americans are looking for. They want to increase the minimum wage. We should no longer dally here, with no disrespect for my colleague from Arizona. We are working on amendments that we worked on, that we had votes on. I will make the motion and urge my colleagues to vote to table the underlying amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask 1 minute on leader time on the majority side.

Mr. BAUCUS. It is very simple. This amendment is not paid for. It is scored as a $2 billion additional hit to the deficit. It is not paid for, let's make that clear. Second, we are talking about extending what is called section 179, which is the small business expensing provisions in the law. The underlying bill already extends 179 through 2010. It already does. This adds 2 more years at the cost of $2 billion. We have time, maybe this year or next, to extend it when we can pay for it at the appropriate time. But, again, the underlying bill very clearly takes care of small business expensing needs by extending 179 through 2010. Second, it is not paid for. We should not adopt this amendment. Madam President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, earlier today President Bush called for renewal of fast-track trade negotiating authority, otherwise known as trade promotion authority, otherwise known as TPA. Fast-track authority expires 6 months from today. Many view this date with fear and trepidation. I do not. I view it as an opportunity to take a hard look at the direction of America's trade policy. It is an opportunity to air differences and an opportunity to find common ground. Trade policy is a bargain, a bargain struck between the American Government and the American people. Americans trust their Government to use trade policy to expand export opportunities, create jobs, to fuel our economy. In exchange for that trust, Americans expect their Government to make sure that trade works for them, and they expect their Government to take action when it does not. That is the fundamental debate in which we, as a nation, must engage. Does trade work for the American farmer, rancher? Does trade work for American factory workers? Does trade work for the American economy? I believe it does. I believe trade creates opportunities. I believe trade generates American jobs. I believe trade bolsters our global competitiveness. I believe trade allows us to project America's values to the world. And I believe the alternative, erecting barriers to trade, is self-defeating and will not make anyone better off. That is why, during my years in Congress, I have long supported granting the President fast-track authority. The success of America's ranches and farms, the success of businesses big and small, requires that the President have this authority. Twelve million American jobs depend on exports. Exports account for a tenth of our country's gross domestic product. Montana exports 60 percent of the wheat grown there. But there are other voices. Many have deep and legitimate concerns about the effect of trade and globalization. Many equate trade with ballooning deficits, stagnating wages, and job layoffs. Many view the growth of China and India as threats rather than as opportunities. Many point to abhorrent labor and environmental conditions in some of our trading partners. And many no longer trust the Government to do its part to take care of the Americans whom trade leaves behind. These concerns are real. They are deeply felt. And we cannot ignore them. True leadership requires that we address these concerns head on. The expiration of trade promotion authority allows us to have this debate. It reminds us we cannot consider renewal of this authority in a vacuum. It underscores the paramount importance of restoring America's faith and confidence in our trade policy, a huge opportunity. In the process, we will examine a series of critical issues. These are issues we must address as we consider whether to reauthorize trade promotion authority. First, we must make trade adjustment assistance, otherwise known as TAA, more reflective of today's innovative economy. TAA is America's commitment to provide wage and health benefits while trade-displaced workers retool, retrain, and find better jobs. A renewed TAA must do what today's program does not. It must be made available to the 8 out of 10 American workers who make their money in service professions. It must apply to all workers displaced by trade, not just those affected by free-trade agreements. The time has come to consider other ways to help workers displaced not just by trade but by other aspects of globalization, including the advance of technology. Second, we have to address concerns that our trade agreements encourage companies to move jobs to countries where substandard labor and environmental policies occur. We need to find common cause with those who abhor child and sweatshop labor anywhere. We need to acknowledge the justifiable ends of those who want to employ trade to help stop despoliation of the planet. We project our values as Americans when we use our trade agreements to create a race to the top. As our trade agreements require our partners to step up their protection of investments and intellectual property, so our agreements should lead to improvements in our partners' labor and environmental protections. Third, we cannot conclude more trade agreements without giving Americans the confidence that we vigorously enforce those agreements already on the books. Too many of our partners cheat and maintain bogus barriers against American exports. For example, look at Korea's unscientific ban on beef; look at the illegal subsidies China grants to its manufacturers. But the trade-enforcement tools that Congress created in the 1970s and 1980s, such as section 301, are outdated. They no longer function as intended. It is time to take a hard look at these tools. We should redraft them so they better address the trade barriers that American exporters face in today's global economy. Fourth, we cannot expect Americans to support trade when they see ever-ballooning trade deficits. Our trade deficit with China this year will approach $300 billion. That is unsustainable. We need to get our balance sheet back in line. That requires us to boost U.S. exports through better enforcement and better export promotion. That requires us to call out countries such as China, possibly even Japan, that use the value of their currency to gain a trade advantage. And it means action at home to improve public and private savings. Fifth, a successful trade policy means that America must be the most competitive nation in the world. American workers need to know they can compete and they can win on a global playing field. And we need to take a good, hard look at how health care costs, our education system, and tax policies affect America's global competitiveness. As I did in the last Congress, I will push competitiveness at every opportunity. I will work for passage of legislation that will guarantee America's economic preeminence for years to come. With trade promotion authority about to expire, the locus of trade policy shifts back to Congress. We have both the opportunity and responsibility to create the next trade policy that will guide us and guide this country forward. We need to work together, clearly, obviously, on trade to find answers to the hard questions. We need to work together on trade to shore up our international leadership, sorely needed. And most of all, we need to work together on trade to restore our bargain with the American people. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally against both sides.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 505(a) of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004. On behalf of Senator Kyl, I move to waive the applicable provisions for the consideration of the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Before the Senate today is the exact same amendment offered by my colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, that the Senate rejected last Thursday. The only difference is that Senator Kyl has modified the amendment to make it even more pernicious; that is, by removing the offset. Thus, the pending amendment would add nearly another $3 billion to the deficit in the next 10 years. The Senate rejected the Kyl amendment last week, but we are here yet again today considering these same issues. This time around, my colleague does not attempt to offset those cuts. Rather, his amendments would put another $3 billion hole in our budget. The amendment would pile onto a deficit that we are desperately trying to erase. Many of us support the policy behind these provisions. We would not have included them in our bill if we did not. As I told the Senator from Arizona at our committee markup, if we could have made these provisions permanent, I certainly would have done so. But the underlying substitute amendment is the product of a Finance Committee hearing, deliberation, and markup. It is balanced. It is revenue neutral. And all Members supported it--it passed unanimously--including the Senator from Arizona. Senators made compromises to get this bill to the floor, and we have done so. I must say, though, I admire the persistence of my good friend from Arizona. He is the original ``energy bunny'' of tax cut amendments. I commend him for that. But he was not successful in committee, and he was not successful on the floor last week. I hope and trust that that was because the Senate would like to provide a balanced package of tax incentives. I hope and trust that the Senate wants a package that does not worsen our deficit. Therefore, I oppose adding another $3 billion in tax provisions to this already $8 billion bill. The $8 billion is paid for. The amendment by the Senator would add another $3 billion and that would not be paid for. At the appropriate time, I intend to raise a budget point of order against the amendment. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to waive that point of order, which I assume will occur in not too many minutes from now. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Heritage Conservation Extension Act of 2007, along with my good friend Senator Grassley from Iowa. As we all know, the country, and my home State of Montana, are losing precious agricultural and ranch lands at a record pace. While providing Montana and the Nation with the highest quality food and fiber, these farms and ranches also provide habitat for wildlife and the open spaces, land that many of us take for granted and assume will always be there. Montana has begun to recognize the importance of these lands. We currently have 1,573,411 acres covered by conservation easements. To some, that may seem like a large amount, but this is Montana, a State that covers 93,583,532 acres, making the conservation easements coverage a mere 1.68 percent of all of our lands. To assure that open space and habitat will be there for future generations, we must help our hardworking farmers and ranchers preserve this precious heritage and their way-of-life. Conservation easements have been tremendously successful in preserving open space and wildlife habitat. Last year, the Congress recognized this by providing targeted income tax relief to small farmers and ranchers who wish to make a charitable contribution of a qualified conservation easement. The provision allows eligible farmers and ranchers to increase the amounts of deduction that may be taken currently for charitable contributions of qualified conservation easements by raising the Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) limitations to 100 percent and extending the carryover period from 5 years to 15 years. In the case of all landowners, the AGI limitation would be raised from 30 percent to 50 percent. The Rural Heritage Conservation Extension Act of 2007 would make this allowable deduction permanent, building on the success of conservation easements. Our farmers and ranchers will be able to preserve their important agricultural and ranching lands for future generations, while continuing to operate their businesses. Landowners, conservationists, the Federal Government, and local communities are working together to preserve our precious natural resources. This legislation is vitally important to Montana, and to every other State in the Nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to commend someone who represents the very best of citizens in public service. I am speaking of Jo Anne Barnhart, the Commissioner of Social Security. Unfortunately, her term ended last Friday. I say ``unfortunately'' because she has done a superb job. Jo Anne Barnhart did not need to take this job. She was doing very well running her own consulting firm. But she took the job for one reason: She wanted to improve the way that the Social Security Administration performs its duties. And SSA is a significantly better agency when Jo Anne left than when she first came on board. That is not all. Many long-term career employees at SSA have said that she is the best Social Security Commissioner for whom they have worked. And a number of veteran Social Security observers and advocates have said the same thing. She has made a remarkable contribution to that agency. What has Jo Anne accomplished? Everyone knows that the Social Security Program provides benefits to workers who have retired. And the Social Security Program also provides benefits to the families of workers who have died. What is less well known is that Social Security provides benefits to workers who become disabled and to the families of those workers. This is one of Social Security's major functions. Determining the benefits that retirees and survivors get is a relatively straightforward process, even where the eligibility rules are very detailed. But the same is not true for benefits for disabled workers. There, SSA has to determine whether the applicant is permanently and totally disabled. This determination requires a lot of difficult work. For many applicants, the answer is not readily apparent. And the applicant can use several layers of appeals, if denied benefits. These additional layers add to the time that an applicant may have to wait before receiving benefits. When Jo Anne took over the agency, it could take as much as 4 years for an applicant to be approved for benefits, if the applicant succeeded at the last layer of appeal. A disabled worker waiting for a decision is not earning any money. This can put enormous pressures on the worker and the worker's family. My case workers in Montana have heard from some of the applicants who have been waiting incredibly long times for a decision. And their stories are harrowing. And the same was true for one Montana applicant who had to wait 4 years to get his disability benefits and who was kind enough to testify before the Finance Committee last year. Jo Anne was fully aware of this problem when she took over the agency. And she was determined to do something about it. The first step was to determine why it took so long for applicants to be approved. At her confirmation hearing, Jo Anne indicated that she would study this issue immediately. And she and I agreed that she would report back to me in 6 months. Jo Anne completed that study and briefed me 6 months later, just as she had promised. Amazingly, this was the first comprehensive study SSA had ever done to determine why it took so long for disability applicants to be approved for benefits. Jo Anne and her staff put every step involved in the disability application process on one chart. When she completed it, that chart was 25 feet long. Jo Anne deserves great credit for initiating and executing this pioneering study. The study found that there were two causes of the long waiting times for approval of disability benefits, and Jo Anne set out to tackle each of them. About half of the delays occurred because of huge backlogs of cases. The principal cause of these backlogs is inadequate staffing, and the principal cause of inadequate staffing is lack of budgetary resources. The other half of the waiting times was due to huge inefficiencies in the processing of disability claims. Jo Anne responded to these challenges. First, she set out to reduce as much of the inefficiency in the disability adjudication process as possible. She initiated the conversion of the application process from a paper- driven process to a completely electronic process. And she aggressively accelerated this conversion, completing the transformation in record time. As a result, SSA now has the largest repository of medical evidence in the world. And the new system works. Previously, all evidence and records used during the adjudication process had to be mailed from one SSA office to another and from doctors' offices to SSA offices. This was inefficient, time-consuming, and expensive. Now all of this is accomplished electronically. Jo Anne deserves great credit for these changes. And Jo Anne initiated a Disability Service initiative. This was a major overhaul of the multiple steps in the disability adjudication process. This initiative brought many improvements. First, quick decisions are made in cases where the disability is obvious. Second, redundant appeal processes were eliminated. Third, huge amounts of time were saved for some appeals that would normally go to a hearing before an administrative law judge. That is a process that can take well over a year to occur. A new type of legal official was created in the system. This lawyer is given authority to award benefits before the case ever proceeds to a hearing. This dramatically reduces the time for the applicant to get benefits. Many other changes were made as well. All of these changes are being piloted. It is hoped that these new processes will greatly increase the efficiency by which disability claims are adjudicated. If they do, Jo Anne will have accomplished something truly great. Jo Anne also initiated action to deal with scarce budgetary resources, the second cause of long delays. She provided detailed and cogent briefings to the Directors of the Office of Management and Budget. As a result, the President's budgets have requested a significant increase for SSA's administrative costs each year. This occurred at a time when the President's budgets contained little or no increases or even decreases in funding for most appropriated programs. Unfortunately, through no lack of effort on Jo Anne's part, the amount of money ultimately appropriated for SSA's administrative costs has been substantially below the amount requested by the President each year. This is a problem that needs to be rectified in the future. One of Jo Anne's finest moments came after the terrible hurricanes, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, decimated whole areas of the gulf coast and Florida. GAO reported: ``The Social Security Administration had enhanced planning and pre-established procedures in place to provide immediate emergency payments to the significant number of beneficiaries who evacuated and did not receive their monthly checks. With these procedures in place, the Social Security Administration had the capability to deploy staff and equipment from its 1,300 offices across the Nation to address the increased workload.'' Under Jo Anne's guidance, SSA also successfully implemented some brand new permanent responsibilities without a hitch. For example, SSA was asked to take applications for the low-income subsidy portion of the Medicare prescription drug program. This subsidy allows low-income Medicare beneficiaries to participate in the prescription drug program at no or reduced cost. SSA was also asked to do massive amounts of outreach to find the people who qualified for the subsidies, and it did so. Jo Anne also guided the implementation of some brand new systems projects. For example, she oversaw the digital recording of hearings. SSA used to record all hearings before its administrative law judges with regular cassette tapes. These tapes were difficult to ship and were often lost during transit. Jo Anne and her team spearheaded the effort to have hearings recorded digitally. It is clear that Commissioner Barnhart accomplished an extraordinary number of achievements for SSA. She has reason to be proud, and the country owes her a huge debt of gratitude. I wish her the very best in whatever endeavors she takes on after she leaves SSA. But we will sorely miss her.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Yes. I thank the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. I will be brief. The argument by the Senator from Arizona is not apt. It is a false analogy. Why? Because we are talking in the main about parents who currently are working, who are currently relying upon the current tax provisions. We are not talking about those who may or may not be considering going to that institution. We are talking about those currently working there. This will be taken away from them. Some of these people are working hard. They are taking a big cut in pay to work at an educational institution so their kids get educated. We are saying: take it away. You have been working there. We are leaving that family high and dry. I think it is the wrong thing to do. There is a proper time to deal with these provisions. This is not the time. It is a bad amendment anyway. Let's figure out ways to give benefits for kids to go to school, not to take them away. I yield back my time, move to table the amendment, and ask for the yeas and nays.