Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. First of all, I would like that not to be the case--well, that automatically would be the case because Senator Grassley and myself would follow Senator Hutchison. Following the Senator from Texas, then the Senator from Iowa, and then myself, and then I am asking following myself, that Senator Murray and Senator Harkin be recognized. There will be three Republicans right in a row there already, at least two, so I am just suggesting that at least Senators Murray and Harkin be able to follow myself.

Mr. BAUCUS. I would like to lock in Senator Grassley and myself because we have been seeking this for some time.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, under regular order, after the Senator from Minnesota speaks, are there other speakers lined up?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the statement by the Senator from Texas, the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, be allowed to speak for 20 minutes; following Senator Grassley, myself for 15 minutes, and following Senator Grassley, Senator Murray for 15, Senator Harkin for 10, and Senator Menendez for 15.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have mixed emotions about the SAFE Ports Act we pass today. On the one hand, I am deeply disappointed that the bill that does not include the essential rail and transit security measures passed by the Senate last month. I strongly disagree with the decision to drop these provisions from the conference report. The rail and transit tragedies we have witnessed in London, Madrid, and Mumbai should be evidence enough that we should not have passed up this chance to shore up our defenses. On the other hand, I am pleased that our hard work on land and seaport security has come to fruition. Working together, we have produced a bill that strengthens the security of our ports while ensuring the proper flow of trade on which all of our Nation's ports and our Nation's economy depends. The easiest way to secure our ports would have been to simply pass a bill that mandated fences around our ports and required opening every container coming across our borders. But these measures would bring the flow of port traffic to a grinding halt and cripple our Nation's economy. It is essential that we strike the right balance on port security. I am pleased that this legislation does so. This bill contains important provisions to screen workers coming through or working at the ports, establishes standards for container security devices, authorizes $400 million in port security grants annually, and requires a pilot program at three foreign ports to employ integrated container scanning technology on 100 percent of containers bound for the United States. The bill also directs the Commissioner of Customs to hire 1,000 more armed Customs and Border Protection officers for land and sea ports around the country. I have heard from ports big and small that they are woefully undermanned. In fact, in Montana, the port of Roosville finally received state-of-the-art container scanning equipment, but we didn't get the personnel to run it, so it sits unused. This bill would ensure that every service port in the country, and the smaller ports in their area, won't be overlooked by Customs and Border Protection headquarters in Washington. The SAFE Ports Act also authorizes the Commissioner of Customs to nearly double the number of Customs and Border Protection specialists dedicated to validating the supply chains of participants in the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program. The quicker this program can process participants, the safer, and more prosperous, our Nation will be. This bill also contains a provision I wrote to direct U.S. Customs and Border to begin targeting methamphetamine and its associated precursor chemicals crossing our borders at ports or through the international mail, and share its findings with various border and drug enforcement agencies. I also saw a need to ensure the Customs and Border Protection Northern Border Airwing Branch based in Great Falls, Montana, will have support facilities needed to cover the 500-mile long border with Canada. Customs and Border Protection officials have proposed to expand the branch by adding facilities in Kalispell, Havre and Glasgow. A provision I authored in this bill gives them the ability to move forward with that plan. Including this provision was important to me, to ensure that Montana's border enforcement personnel have the backup they need to get the job done. All of these provisions I have mentioned are key to enhancing physical security at our ports and along our borders. But it was important that we do more than that. When Congress passed the Homeland Security Act of 2002, we strictly prohibited any diminution in the trade functions or personnel committed to trade functions at the Department of Homeland Security. Yet for 3 years, the Department has not complied with the law. Trade resources have decreased by as much as 15 percent within both Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. I fought hard to ensure that this bill requires the Commissioner of Customs to restore a proper focus on the traditional trade mission of his agency. So this act further ensures the Commissioner's commitment to Customs' trade mission by creating an Office of International Trade, headed by an Assistant Commissioner, who will be responsible for coordinating policy for all personnel dedicated to the agency's trade functions. The Commissioner will also now be assisted in trade policy oversight and operations by an International Trade Committee, comprised of the Assistant Commissioners of International Trade, Finance, Field Operations, International Affairs, and the Director of Trade Relations. Finally, we have also included a mandate for all U.S. agencies involved in the clearance of imports or exports to use a single-portal data collection system to streamline the clearance process. I look forward to seeing how all of these measures will improve the overall trade mission of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. While far from being the comprehensive transportation security legislation I had hoped the House would support, the bill before us is a positive step forward. I believe we have struck a good balance between security and trade. I thank my friend Senator Grassley, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, for working with me so closely on this, as in so many things. And I want to thank my colleagues for working so hard with Senator Grassley and I to find the appropriate balance in this bill. It was a long, difficult journey, but we arrived there together in the end. Thanks and congratulations to Chairman Stevens and Ranking Member Inouye of the Commerce Committee, Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Lieberman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Sarbanes of the Banking Committee, and of course, my good friends, Senator Murray and Senator Coleman. I also would like to recognize all of the hard-working staff who made the port security legislation before us today possible. On my Finance Committee staff, I credit the tenacity and hard work of Anya Landau French, International Trade Adviser. Anya dedicated long hours to the Customs Reauthorization and Trade Facilitation Act of 2006, which served as the basis for many of the provisions in this Act. Brian Pomper, Chief International Trade Counsel; Bill Dauster, Chief Counsel and Deputy Democratic Staff Director; and Russ Sullivan, Staff Director, were all indispensable to this effort. I would be remiss if I did not also recognize the tireless efforts of Senator Grassley's talented, hardworking Finance Committee staff, who worked so closely and so well with my own staff. Tiffany McCullen Atwell and Stephen Schaefer put in long hours, and Kolan Davis, Staff Director, provided excellent guidance. I also want to thank the many other dedicated staff of the Commerce Committee and the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, in particular, Dabney Hegg, Sam Whitehorn, Stephen Gardner, Gael Sullivan, Channon Hanna, Lisa Sutherland, Ken Nahigian, David Wonnenberg, Mark Delich, Jason Yanussi, Michael Alexander, Rob Strayer, Mark Winter, and Ray Shepard. This bill is a result of teamwork and commitment at its best. May the work we have all done keep us safe and strong.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my friend, my colleague, and chairman of the Committee on Finance, Senator Grassley, for trying to do what is right, and that is to get the extenders package passed tonight. He has done an excellent job of explaining why the so-called trifecta bill--that is the standards trailer, melded in with the estate tax reform, melded in with a minimum wage reduction--just is not going to work. Three times I have tried to urge this Senate to pass the so-called extenders. Three times the Senate disagreed; that is, I have asked for unanimous consent three times and each time the Senate said no. The objection was from the other side of the aisle. I again thank my friend from Iowa. I think it is important to realize how vitally important it is we get these so-called extenders passed. What are they? They are basic provisions in the Tax Code which expired at the end of last year. They expired. There is a deduction for teachers' classroom expenses, a deduction for education tuition, there is a deduction for State sales tax revenue, there is a deduction for research and development. They all expired. These are all provisions that many Americans have relied on and hope to rely on when they file their tax returns next year. They are not in the law. It is already September 29. We have not acted to extend these. They are extremely important to an awful lot of people. Let's just take teachers, for example. Teachers desperately want to help teach their kids. Some of them buy classroom supplies. They go down to Wal-Mart and buy supplies and they get a deduction for the classroom supplies they buy. It is important for the teachers. It is important for the kids. It is a good thing to do. It has been in the law--at least it has been in the past. It was a law through 2005. What about tuition deduction? We all know how important that is and how much people depend on that for their education expense, particularly when tuition is going up so much. I cannot believe it, that expired at the end of last year. This Congress, apparently, is not going to enact it. I have asked the Senate three times to bring it up and pass it, joined in by my good friend from Iowa. Three times the other side of the aisle objected. Why did they object? Because they want to tie it back into estate tax reform, they want to tie it back into minimum wage reduction. We all know that is not going to work. As the Senator from Iowa said, clearly and eloquently, we tried that many, many times and that dog don't hunt. That bird doesn't fly. It just doesn't work. It is not going to go. What should we do, if that is not going to work, if that is not going to go? We should exercise our responsibilities and do what is right. I have a couple of charts. I want to show everyone what the 1040 form looks like. This is the basic Form 1040 that applies to taxpayers who paid taxes in the year 2005. The two provisions at issue are highlighted here. Line 23 is ``educator expenses,'' and line 34 is ``tuition and fees deduction.'' Line 23, for educator expenses, is for teachers who spend money on classroom supplies. There are 3.3 million exercising this deduction. They want to help their kids and, obviously, lower their taxes, so they took the deduction. Line 34 on Form 1040 is ``tuition and fees deduction.'' About 3.6 million Americans took advantage of that deduction when filling out their tax returns for the tax return for 2005. What will happen if we do not pass this extenders provision tonight or tomorrow? First, the IRS has said their drop-dead date is mid- October. They need to know what the law is by mid-October. We will not be here mid-October if we do not pass these extenders, these provisions in the next couple of hours. We are not going to be here. If we come back in a lame duck session--November 13 we are coming back--who knows how soon it will be before we finally take up the extenders? I suspect because these are so popular that this is going to attract an awful lot of other legislation. Maybe it is the estate tax change, wages--I don't know what it will be, but it will attract a lot of attention at the lame duck session. So that means it will probably delay. I don't know how long this lame duck session will last. I have been here for some lame duck sessions close to Christmas, very close to Christmas. I remember one that was 2 or 3 days before Christmas. What happens if we pass the extenders late? Here is what will happen. These lines I told you about, lines 23 and 34, are going to change. If this is the basic 1040 form--and there are more deductions than this that taxpayers can take, but these are the basic deductions and the most important deductions--line 23 is no longer a deduction for teachers classroom supplies. Instead, line 23 is ``Archer MSA deduction.'' That is only for up to 750,000 taxpayers. Compare that with what has been replaced, classroom teacher deduction, or 3.3 million teachers. And line 34, that used to be the deduction for tuition expenses. That now becomes jury duty pay you pay to your employer. How many people take a deduction because their employer pays them for jury duty? My point is, very important provisions are no longer going to be in the law. They will not be available. You might ask, gee, what happens if Congress passes these very important provisions--who knows when; it could be just before Thanksgiving; it could be December; it could be the first part of December--the IRS has will be mailing out the wrong forms. The forms are going to be wrong because presumably, hopefully, sometime in November or December we do what is right, we continue these provisions which means to say we do not raise taxes. Let's not forget if we do not pass this we are raising taxes, first, on 3.3 million teachers; we are raising taxes on another 3.6 million people who file for tuition deduction. These people will find their taxes increased if we do not pass this provision. Again, say we do pass the provisions later in the year, say, in November or December, and the wrong forms go out. Then what will happen? People will have the wrong forms. Then what will happen? Gee, the IRS, will have to figure out what to do about this. Maybe they will send out a postcard. Who do you send postcards to? They send postcards to people who filed paper returns the preceding year. A lot of people do not file paper returns. They are not going to get a postcard. They are not going to know. They are not going to know that Congress corrected the mistake it made by passing these extensions. What about people who file electronically? What about people who buy their software, their Turbo Tax software sometime around Thanksgiving or the first part of December, getting ready for Christmas, with Christmas presents. They are not going to know. They are going to buy the wrong software. The software is not going to have the right information on it. You add it altogether, this Congress is being highly irresponsible by not continuing--we call them extenders. There are others: the sales tax deduction. What about the R&D tax credit? There are about 16,000 businesses that use the R&D tax credit. We have reports that many companies are going to have to restate their earnings--restate them-- because they cannot calculate the research and development tax credit in their financials. They will have to restate them. No company wants to restate on the down side. No company wants to do that. Even big companies have to restate them--not just small companies but big companies. They too will not be able to take advantage of this. So I just say it is highly irresponsible for this Congress not to extend these provisions. And when I make the request we take up the trailer bill and pass it, this is not a perfunctory request. This is not some crank turning. This is real. I think, unfortunately, there are some people in the leadership on the other side of the aisle who think: Oh, this is just a mechanical exercise. This is not a mechanical exercise. It is certainly not mechanical to all those teachers, kids who paid tuition, who want their deduction, businesses that don't get the advantage of the R&D tax credit, people who want to deduct their sales taxes that are supposed to be deductible. We are not extending that either. We are only talking about two of the so-called extenders. Our failure to act here is going to be very costly. The IRS has to go to great expense to print corrective returns, errata sheets. They have to file statements to taxpayers notifying them of changes. Taxpayers are going to wonder: What is going on here? Do you know what else is going to happen? A lot of taxpayers, teachers, are not going to know there has been a change made. They are going to get the wrong form. The form is not going to have it on it. There are a lot of people and kids and parents who are not going to know there has been a change. They are not going to know because it is not on the form. Somebody might make an effort to try to tell people later on, but there is a real risk of a lot of taxpayers who are just not going to know they could take deductions, and they are not going to know because they have the wrong information. And they have the wrong information because the IRS has given them the best information they could at the time, but Congress was derelict, Congress was not responsible, Congress did not do what it should do for the American people. I am very concerned. And, frankly, I am very disappointed. I am saddened that this Congress is, in effect, playing games. I hope very much, and I ask, I plead with the other side, at least let's hold off just a little bit. Don't immediately object. Let's figure out a way to work this out. We have a few hours here tonight. It is very simple. These are provisions everybody has agreed on. There is no disagreement. The only problem the other side of the aisle, the majority, has is when to do it. I indicated that the drop-dead date for the IRS is October 15, so now is the time to do it--not later. We cannot couple this with estate tax repeal. We cannot couple this with the minimum wage increases. We have tried that a couple, three times. It did not work. The dye is cast. Senators have cast their votes. So let's get on with it. Let's get on with it. Let's put those issues behind us. We do not have to deal with minimum wage or estate tax tonight, but we do have to do the extenders tonight. This is very timely. I very much hope that nobody objects right away. Maybe we could put this off for a few minutes, maybe a half an hour or something, and plead with those who are sane, who want to do this right, to just get this package of extenders passed. So I am going to ask consent, but maybe somebody could modify the consent to hold it off a little longer while we try to work out a way to get this passed. Mr. President, we do not apparently have the consent request printed right in front of me right at this moment. But I am going to have it later tonight. That is probably better because that means maybe cooler heads will prevail and we can figure out a way to get this passed. I see my good friend from Arizona is standing in the Chamber. I know he would like to get these provisions passed. I know he has other considerations too, but he would like to have this provision passed, and I think everybody on the floor would like to get these provisions passed. We can deal with these other issues, but we don't have to deal with them tonight. We cannot tonight. It is too late. But everybody has agreed to this package of extenders--everyone. The chairman of the Finance Committee has been desperately trying to get this passed. I hope later on tonight, when we ask consent, we get it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this Congress has made little progress on health care. We know the problems. Health costs are rising. The number of uninsured is growing. American companies, burdened by growing health- care obligations, are struggling to compete. And what has Congress done about it? Not much. The trends are worsening. Last month, we learned that nearly 47 million Americans lack health insurance. That is up from a bit over 40 million in 2001. Last week we learned that health insurance premiums rose 7.7 percent last year. That is twice the rate of inflation. And nearly every day, I hear from an employer concerned about the rising cost of health care. Unfortunately, this Congress has not made progress on these top-tier health issues. Congress has not made progress even where wide agreement exists. There is wide agreement on health information technology, or health IT. Most experts agree that smarter use of health IT would cut costs. It would increase efficiency. It would reduce medical errors. And it would save lives. Furthermore, health IT would help us to move to system of paying health care providers for the quality of care that they provide. That is an important priority of mine. Last November, the Senate passed a health IT bill unanimously. That was nearly 11 months ago. Yet an agreement has still not been reached with the House on a compromise health IT bill. This bill started with broad support across the Senate. But deliberations on this bill have now turned partisan. Recently, the majority has excluded Democrats from the conference committee deliberations. There is also wide agreement on Medicare physician reimbursements. An overwhelming majority of Senators have urged action to prevent a pending 5.1 percent cut in the Medicare physician fee schedule for 2007. And there is broad agreement on the need to start rewarding quality in Medicare. But despite agreement on both issues, Congress has yet to act. There is also wide agreement on helping seniors confused by the new Medicare drug benefit. The new Medicare drug program imposes a penalty on those who sign up after the enrollment deadline. But the way that the Government implemented the new Medicare drug program confused seniors. In response, Chairman Grassley and I joined a wide group of Senators to introduce legislation to waive the penalty for this year. But despite broad support for this measure, it remains unaddressed. There is also wide agreement that we need to sustain important health safety net programs. In 3 months, funding for transitional medical assistance--TMA --ill expire. TMA provides temporary health coverage to low-income working parents moving from welfare to work. Without a TMA extension, nearly 800,000 working parents will lose the temporary health coverage that they need to leave welfare and lead independent lives. There is also wide agreement that we need to enact technical corrections to last year's Deficit Reduction Act. While I did not vote for that bill, it is important that Congress clarify any misunderstandings over its intent. I know that Chairman Grassley shares my interest in getting this done as soon as possible. There is also wide agreement to support the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. CHIP has helped cut the number of uninsured kids from 10.7 million in 1997 to 8.3 million in 2005. But despite this success, 17 States face federal funding shortfalls in their CHIP programs. These shortfalls potentially jeopardize coverage for hundreds of thousands of kids. We cannot afford to lose ground in our fight to provide more health coverage for children. There is also wide agreement that we need to improve health care in Indian Country. In June, the Finance Committee reported legislation to improve access to Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP in Indian Country. That bill is now part of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. That bill is being held hostage by a handful of opponents on the other side. There is no shortage of important health issues. Many health issues spark intense partisan disagreement. But that is generally not true about the ones that I just described. That is why it is so disappointing that these issues--from Medicare physician payments to transitional Medicaid--remain unaddressed. If we are ever going to make progress on the most difficult problems facing our health system--rising costs, the uninsured, threats to American competitiveness--we will have to work together and pass legislation. That we cannot even work together on issues with wide agreement is deeply troubling.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wish to commend the National Weather Service and the Billings, MT office. This year Billings, MT, hosted the 13th national signature event commemorating the Bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Corps of Discovery Exploration. The event at Pompeys Pillar was one of the most successful signature events in the country, and I was proud to participate in the opening ceremonies. A great deal of preparation and partnership went into the planning surrounding those 4 days in July and the thousands of visitors expected to attend. Federal agencies stepped up to the table. Federal partnerships were key to this success. Specific concern centered on area wildfires already burning that had been started by lightning strikes from afternoon and evening storms. The National Weather Service took on major responsibility for these weather-related public safety issues. On Saturday, July 22 and Sunday, July 23, late afternoon storms accompanied by upwards of 60-mph winds necessitated rapid evacuations of the public events at Pompeys Pillar. Efficient communication and clear direction from the National Weather Service, in coordination with the Bureau of Land Management, provided safe passage out of Pompeys Pillar in a swift and orderly fashion for the remaining public visitors, volunteers, and employees on those days. It is apparent that the storm's effect and damage could have easily become a larger story attributed to the Pompeys Pillar signature event. That it was not is a testament to the science, technology, and public service and dedication of your agency and of your employees. Thanks to all of you for what you do for Montana. It is a job well done.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would have voted in support of the nomination of Francisco Augusto Besosa to the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. However, I was on my way back from Montana and was unable to make it to the Senate floor before the vote ended. Mr. Besosa is well qualified for the position and will be a good addition to the court. Francisco Augusto ``Frank'' Besosa is partner and head of the litigation department of Adsuar Muniz Goyco Besosa, P.S.C. in San Juan, Puerto Rico. After graduating from Brown University in 1971, he served 5 years in active military service in military intelligence. He was honorably discharged from Inactive Reserve from the U.S. Army with the rank of captain in 1977. He earned a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center in 1979. After law school, Mr. Besosa returned to Puerto Rico and joined the law firm of O'Neill & Borges. With the exception of 3 years in the 1980s as an assistant U.S. attorney, Mr. Besosa has spent his entire legal career in private practice in several firms conducting civil and commercial litigation in Puerto Rico. His work has focused on banking and bankruptcy; securities regulation; admiralty; insurance; torts including personal injury, medical malpractice, and product liability; telecommunications and intellectual property both at the trial and appellate level. Mr. Besosa is a member of numerous bars including the Puerto Rico Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, American Bar Association, District of Columbia Bar Association, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and the Federal Circuit, and the Hispanic National Bar Association. He has held a variety of leadership positions in the Federal Bar Association Puerto Rico Chapter including director, president-elect, vice president, secretary and treasurer. The ABA has recommended Mr. Besosa for the position with a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating. Given his qualifications and experience, Mr. Besosa is a good fit for the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. I would have supported his nomination.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to an issue that is vital to agricultural producers in my State as well as across our Nation. That issue is agriculture natural disaster assistance. The relentless drought has brought economic hardship to both our agriculture producers and our rural communities. Farmers and ranchers in many different parts of the United States are suffering the effects of natural disasters. We must not and cannot continue to ignore the impacts of drought and the effect it has on our agricultural producers and our rural communities. Agricultural producers are every bit as deserving of assistance for their suffering from the drought as the small businesses suffering from the hurricanes. We as a nation have a responsibility to provide emergency assistance to those who have had losses due to natural disasters. I look forward to working with my colleagues to fulfill that responsibility, working to support a bill that provides critical emergency relief to our Nation's agricultural producers. After what I hope will be a healthy debate on this important issue, I ask that a vote be taken on the bill. Too often, the argument is made that farmers and ranchers should be satisfied with the funding they will receive from the farm bill. The truth is that only 18 percent of the total funding in the farm bill goes directly to producers. The rest goes to very important programs, such as Food Stamps and the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program. Nothing in the farm bill was ever intended to cover losses due to natural disasters. It is only intended to cover economic losses. The same way we use emergency funds to help individuals and rebuild communities hurt by hurricanes and tornadoes, we should use emergency funds to help individuals and rebuild our communities hurt by drought.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Right.

Mr. BAUCUS. He wants to do what I am suggesting.

Mr. BAUCUS. I deeply appreciate the Senator's comments, but let me ask if the Senator heard, as I have, in a good number of companies, if these provisions are not enacted the companies are going to have to begin to restate their financials and take a charge against earnings because of the loss of the work opportunity tax credit and loss of the research and development tax credit. I wonder if my good friend from Nevada has heard that, learned that, and what he might tell us the consequences of that might be when a company has to take a charge because of the failure of the other side of the aisle to let this provision pass, which we all know is going to pass.

Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate that. The chairman of the Finance Committee more than anything else wants to do what is right. He doesn't like to get involved in politics. That is what the American people want, not to get involved in politics, but to do what is right. That is why they should listen to the chairman who very much agrees with what you have talked about here.

Mr. BAUCUS. Correct.

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank my friend very much.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have repeatedly raised the problem of the ever-growing Federal tax gap. What is that? The tax gap is the difference between taxes legally owed and taxes actually paid. That gap is $345 billion a year, and it is growing. That is right. Every year, about $345 billion in taxes legally owed is not paid--$345 billion a year. One of the things that contributes significantly to the tax gap is confusion. Many taxpayers simply claim credits or deductions by mistake, and that error rate is about to get worse. As IRS Commissioner Everson pointed out in a Finance Committee hearing this month, the IRS and taxpayers will face unnecessary confusion and compliance errors if Congress does not finish its changes to the tax law soon. Taxpayers will face more mistakes and hassles if we do not extend the expired tax provisions soon. ``Soon'' means prior to October 15, according to Commissioner Everson. If Congress does not reinstate the expired tax incentives before it recesses for the election, then the IRS will have to print tax forms for next year's filing season applying the law ``as is.'' That means reprint; more expense. The IRS will print the forms without the tax credit for U.S.-based research jobs, without the tax deduction for State sales taxes, without the tax credit for hiring welfare workers, and without the tax deductions for classroom supplies that teachers buy--without those deductions. That is what would have to be printed by the IRS. If Congress does not extend these provisions by the end of next week, then the IRS will have to spend taxpayers' money to rush printing for supplemental documents to describe these incentives if and when Congress actually passes them. Millions of families, businesses and workers utilize these popular tax incentives. These are not obscure tax benefits claimed on separate forms or schedules. For example, look at the front page of the basic form 1040, which I have at my right. Look at line 23, right here, in the category ``adjusted gross income.'' That line 23 is labeled ``educator expenses.'' What should the IRS do with the classroom teachers' deduction? Look at line 34, right here: ``Tuition and fees deduction.'' What should the IRS do with the tuition deduction for middle-income families? They both expired at the end of 2005, so the IRS really cannot print them. It cannot do so on the 2006 tax form. It cannot print them because Congress has not extended those provisions. But if the IRS does not print them on form 1040, and it cannot do so, how many teachers will miss out on this deduction? School started not too long ago this year. How many teachers will miss out if the IRS merely mentions the deduction in some supplementary instruction guide? What about the millions of taxpayers who use software to assist in tax preparation? Those software providers have deadlines, too, and they have told us mid-October is their ``drop dead'' date, just as it is for the IRS. They will try to have their products in stores and on the shelves by Thanksgiving. That would be literally days after our lame duck session, when some believe that we should extend these benefits appearing on form 1040. You might ask why these software providers cannot just send updates to customers. The providers tell us they cannot force the customer to receive the update. Millions of customers will miss the update; they just will not know about it. They will miss it. Millions of customers will ignore the update and millions will lose out. Earlier this year the Finance Committee held an investigative hearing and looked at the ``free file'' alliances, which provide free electronics services to many taxpayers via the IRS Web site. The committee found many members of the ``free file'' alliance simply declined to include any of the Katrina-related tax benefits. Why? Because Congress enacted those benefits into law so late in the year it simply was not feasible for providers to include them. Delay has costs. Delay costs taxpayers money. Delay impairs the effective tax administration by the IRS. I am again asking my colleagues to support my unanimous consent request to pass the negotiated tax extenders. If my amendment is agreed to, it will retroactively restore all those popular benefits. We are going to enact them, but the real cost and the irresponsibility will be if we don't pass them in the next couple of weeks but, rather, later on in the year when it will cause all these costs I just mentioned. My amendment will also provide the compromise reached on the Abandoned Mine Land trust fund, or AML. We need these tax cuts. We cannot wait until the next tax period. Mr. President, I do not see anybody on the floor who might object, except for the Presiding Officer. I guess he will object in his role of a Senator from his State. unanimous-consent request--h.r. 4096 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 326, H.R. 4096, that the Senate adopt my amendments numbered 5003 and 5004, which are the agreed-upon tax extender package, that this bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and all this occur without intervening action. I repeat, Mr. President, before the Chair in his role as a Senator objects, because he has been instructed to do so by the majority party, I think it is extremely irresponsible for this body not to enact these extenders right away. As I stated, it is going to happen, so why put the American people through this unnecessary, ridiculous additional cost? Why can't we as a body just do what is right? What is right is to pass these extenders now before we recess in a couple of weeks. That is the right thing to do instead of all the games we have been playing around here. I wish those games would not be played. But, frankly, the party in control of this body has chosen to object to this request. I am very disappointed in the U.S. Senate for not doing what is right.

Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the great America poet Robert Frost once said that ``good fences make good neighbors.'' In my home State of Montana, nothing could be further from the truth. Although our State is more than 600 miles wide, and nearly 300 miles long, we really are one big small town. And when one of our neighbors is in need, we are always willing to roll up our sleeves and lend a helping hand. During this year's fire season, many of our neighbors were in dire need as fires raged across our State. Nearly 1 million acres burned, an area larger than the State of Rhode Island. As homes, livestock, crops, and land burned, Montanans from one corner of the State to the other lost everything they had. But from this destruction and rubble, arose many Montana heroes, and I would like to take a moment to publicly recognize them. On the front lines were all the brave wild land firefighters. These men and women came from all over the country, and even some foreign countries, to put their lives on the line for people they had never met. While it is easy to be a Monday morning quarterback and criticize some of their techniques, it is clear that these brave men and women deserve nothing but praise. When I visited the fires and I looked into the men and women's eyes after working 12 hour days in 100 degree heat, as they were so exhausted they could hardly stand, I knew that they had given everything their all, 110 percent, to protect Montanans. These men and women sought no praise or recognition, and whenever they were congratulated they would merely say, ``We're just doing our jobs.'' But these men and women weren't just doing a job; they were saving lives, protecting property, and nothing could be more heroic. Words cannot do their deeds justice but on behalf of every Montanan, I would like to offer my deepest thanks. And these men and women couldn't have done their job without all the support from different people and agencies throughout the State. All the folks at the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, the Montana Department of Emergency Services, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana State and local law enforcement, the local governments and county commissioners, volunteer fire departments, and the Northern Rockies Coordinating Group, which coordinated all these efforts, and their Federal partners. All these folks worked tirelessly to manage these blazes. Day or night they were constantly monitoring the fires, providing important updates, and making sure the people of the affected communities had every resource possible to deal with these disasters. I would also like to recognize all the people who worked behind the scenes, the people whose names might not appear in the news, but without whose effort these fires couldn't have been contained. The busdrivers, the local volunteers, the food service providers, the pilots, the list could go on and on. Without these services, the damage to my home State would have been much worse. Finally, I would like to thank all the Montanans who rolled up their sleeves, saw a neighbor in need, and helped out. Whether it was ranchers helping move livestock, community organizations and churches holding clothing drives, or people opening their homes to those who had nowhere to go, all these people truly exemplify the Montana spirit. The 2006 fire season will go down in history as one of worst in our State's history. Yet it will also go down as a time when neighbors helped neighbors, when people traveled hundreds of miles to lend a hand to a friend. It will go down as a time of heroes.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I once heard my home State of Montana described as a small town with long streets and I can't think of a more apt description. We are all neighbors, and one of our cardinal rules is if your neighbor needs help, lend a hand. Last month, as fires raged across our State, many of our neighbors needed a hand and Montanans from all over Big Sky country pitched into help. Among the first to help out was the Stillwater Mining Company. As many are aware, the massive Derby Mountain Fire caused serious damage around Big Timber, MT. At one time the Derby Mountain Fire was the top priority fire in the country. When the communities around Big Timber needed help, the folks at the Stillwater Mining Company rolled up their sleeves and figured out how they could help. The Stillwater Mining Company knew what a massive disaster the Derby Fire had become, and how those fighting the fire needed every pair of hands they could get. To get more boots on the ground, the Stillwater Mining Company provided full pay leave to all of their employees who volunteered to either fight the fire or to assist the fire crews. They paid for every meal that the Red Cross served at the Derby Fire. They sent their human resource staffers to the area to help manage the evacuations. Their computer mapping specialists helped to make highly sophisticated fire maps. They sent their own personal bulldozers to the fire lines. They sent their sprinkler systems to the front lines to saturate areas to protect homes. They also allowed helicopters to dip into their mining ponds. And all of this was done by the Stillwater Mining Company while at the same time they were forced to shut their mines down for 8 days due to the fire. The Stillwater Mining Company saw a neighbor in need and without hesitation they lent a hand. I am proud to call them neighbor, and in Montana there is no higher compliment.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I applaud the Senate's unanimous approval of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006. I am proud to have cosponsored this legislation with Senators Grassley, Rockefeller, Hatch, and Snowe. The bill reauthorizes and improves the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program and the Child Welfare Services Act. Every child deserves the chance to grow up in a safe and stable home, and we need to root out the problems that too often force children into the child welfare system, particularly the growing scourge of methamphetamine, or ``meth,'' abuse. This bill makes some real improvements to our child welfare system and gets us closer to the goal of a thriving, secure childhood for every American youngster. In Montana, meth is wreaking havoc on our child welfare system. Prevention and intervention are key to stopping the vicious cycle. That is why I have worked hard to secure these funds so we can be one step closer to stamping out meth in Montana and around the country. In hearings held earlier this year, the Senate Finance Committee heard testimony that ``over 65 percent of all foster care placements in Montana are directly attributable to drug use, and of those, meth is a primary factor 57 percent of the time,'' and that ``meth use among residents of the seven Indian tribes in Montana is far in excess of epidemic proportion.'' I am proud to have worked to include $145 million in competitive grants to address the problem of methamphetamine and substance abuse related to child welfare and foster care. The funding is targeted to regional partnerships that include State agencies and will be available for family-based, comprehensive, long-term substance abuse treatment, early intervention and preventive services, and other innovative initiatives. I also have worked to insure that historically under- funded child welfare programs for Indian tribes received increased monies to help combat new and challenging issues. I am grateful to Chairman Grassley and others for recognizing these needs and working with me to enact these provisions. The reauthorized Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program will also require States to provide additional information on efforts to get children into safe family situations and keep them there. Congress will receive actual spending data on adoption and postadoption services, efforts to keep families together, and efforts to provide permanent, safe, and loving homes for children. In addition, the bill supports the training and hiring of more child welfare caseworkers so that more children in foster care will receive at least monthly visits. The bill requires States to achieve the standard of monthly social worker visits for 90 percent of foster children by 2011. This will help ensure proper monitoring of the development of children for whom the State has taken responsibility. It also continues the Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program and creates a 3-year demonstration program to help provide mentoring services in underserved areas. The child welfare system protects the most vulnerable people in our society. It provides a safe harbor for children. It looks out for children whose birth families, for one reason or another, have not been able to provide fertile soil in which to grow. Each year, almost 3,000 Montana children enter foster care. They come because of abuse. They come because of neglect. They come because of other serious difficulties in their families. The Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program supports efforts to rebuild families. And it helps to find permanency for kids when that proves impossible. This program is the largest dedicated source of Federal funds for services to children and families. Last year, Montana received a little over $2 million from the program. These funds are critical to Montana's child welfare system, and this legislation is a pivotal opportunity to ensure adequate support for strong families. I look forward to quick passage by the House so that we can begin to better safeguard the well-being of our children.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Finance Committee fellows and interns be allowed floor privileges today: Ali Sarafzade, Tory Cyr, Brett Youngerman, John Lageson, and Mia Warner.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, two-and-a-half months ago, the Senate passed the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. We did so because we expected that this agreement will benefit our economy. That is still true. And we should pass it again today. Under the agreement, virtually all American merchandise exports will enter Oman duty free. Oman will eliminate most of its duties right away. And Oman will liberalize the remainder of its duties within 10 years. This agreement gives free access to the growing Omani market to American industrial equipment, medical devices, frozen beef, and snack foods. Oman has also agreed to go beyond its multilateral commitments to provide greater American access to its services markets. It has committed to protect intellectual property. It has committed to combat corruption and bribery. And it has implemented reforms of its labor laws to address American concerns. I support this trade agreement on its merits. It is a good agreement. And it will strengthen our ties with a valuable partner in the Middle East. I urge my colleagues to vote for it. Some may wonder why a small agreement like this has generated any controversy. In part, that is due to the process by which this agreement came before Congress. The Finance Committee unanimously adopted an amendment to the Oman implementing legislation. Then the administration rejected that amendment outright. This disregard for the constitutional authority of Congress over international trade only weakens support for the administration's trade policy. But more broadly, the controversy over Oman reflects more general frustration with trade agreements. In Congress, there is deep frustration with the way that the administration has negotiated these agreements. And there is frustration with the way that the administration has handled important issues like labor and the environment. Americans are concerned about job losses. Americans associate globalization with threats to their jobs. And Americans are concerned that trade agreements might erode conditions in the workplace. These issues will come to the fore as we approach the expiration of Trade Promotion Authority in the middle of next year. In the wake of the controversy surrounding Oman and other trade agreements, it is high time that we take a hard look at American trade policy. It is high time that we ask ourselves how we can make it work better. For starters, we have to refocus our trade policy. We have to make sure that it helps American workers and businesses meet the competitive challenges that they face in the global marketplace. We have to rethink the types of trade initiatives that we pursue in the future. We have to build grassroots support for trade. And we have to pay far greater attention to domestic initiatives to increase our savings, reduce our trade deficit, improve education, and help the workers whom trade leaves behind. I look forward to that debate. I look forward to laying the foundation for a broader consensus on trade. And I look forward to the day when we can once again join together on the trade agreements of the future.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I introduce the Emergency Trade Program Extension Act of 2006. For more than 30 years, the United States has opened its vast market to developing countries through trade preference programs. We have done so to encourage greater economic development and openness in those countries. The United States is the largest market in the world. And it is also one of the most open. And this openness has played an important role in economic development, both in the United States and around the globe. Two important preference programs are set to expire at the end of this year: the Generalized System of Preferences and the Andean Trade Preference Act. I know that some have criticized these programs, GSP in particular, for being unnecessary, inefficient, or counterproductive. They argue that the majority of the imports that benefit from GSP come from just a handful of middle-income countries. And they argue that the truly poorest developing countries barely use the program at all. Many of the most active users of GSP--like Brazil, Thailand, Indonesia, and Argentina--have developed strong export sectors. This raises the question of whether they even need preference programs to compete on the world market. And critics charge that big GSP beneficiary countries like India and Brazil were among the most recalcitrant in supporting greater market access in the Doha Round negotiations. They claim that the active efforts of these countries contributed to the collapse of the Round. Why, they ask, should we keep our markets open to such countries, if they will not open their markets to us? I am not deaf to these criticisms. I think that there is much truth in them. But before we allow these important programs simply to expire, I believe that we should examine them in detail. We should explore whether and how they might be changed to address valid criticisms. We should understand the effect that canceling them might have on the U.S. image around the world, U.S. diplomatic efforts, and our trade priorities in the Doha Round and elsewhere. And we should give those in the United States who rely upon these programs an opportunity to explain how their interests might be adversely affected by cancelling GSP and ATPA. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative recently began a review of the GSP program to look at many of these very issues. That review will not be completed until mid-November, at the earliest. I believe that we should preserve the status quo until we in the Congress have had an opportunity to digest the outcome of that review and conduct our own analysis. GSP is important to keeping countries engaged in the trade liberalization dialogue. For one thing, these countries are interested in maintaining benefits under the program. As a result, they are more willing to address concerns that we may raise with them. GSP- eligibility has given us leverage to address bilateral trade problems-- such as intellectual property protection--and to persuade beneficiary countries to respect international norms on labor rights, human rights, and other matters. And as they gain more experience in international markets, they can see the benefits of liberalization in action. Without GSP, those countries might see China or other big exporters take over their share of our market. Most of the imports from GSP beneficiaries occur outside the program. U.S. imports from GSP beneficiary countries in 2005 exceeded $248 billion. Of that, less than $27 billion--less than 10 percent--entered duty-free under the GSP program. GSP is much more important to the least developed countries. One- third of the total imports from these countries were under GSP preferences. Many of the least developed countries depend on GSP to sell their products into the American market. They have worked hard to establish export-oriented industries, but still need the extra boost provided by GSP or other preference programs. Some of our other preference programs target these very poor countries, including the preferences under the African Growth and Opportunity Act and the Caribbean Basin programs. But for a large number of countries--including Afghanistan, Armenia, Bangladesh, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, and Pakistan--there are no other programs to help them compete against other exporters in the U.S. market. GSP is also important to U.S. competitiveness. Raw materials and components for further processing make up more than two-thirds of the products imported under GSP. For example, GSP imports make up a significant percentage of U.S. total imports of leather processed after tanning--45 percent, ferroalloys--37 percent, aluminum sheets--25 percent, and copper wire--25 percent. American retailers have taken advantage of the programs to find new products and new sources of supply. And every year, U.S. consumers save millions of dollars because of GSP duty savings. Trade preferences for our Andean partners have helped curb the production and smuggling of drugs. Trade can encourage diversification out of drug crops, and offer an economic future to people who otherwise are easy prey for narcotraffickers. The Andean preference programs play a significant role in facilitating exports from Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia. Almost 60 percent of exports from those countries are covered by these preferences. Some argue that trade preferences for the Andean countries are now both unnecessary and ill-advised. They say that the preferences are unnecessary because the United States has negotiated free trade agreements with Peru and Colombia. And they say that the preferences are ill-advised in extending benefits to Bolivia and Ecuador, both of which have taken actions and made statements recently at variance with U.S. interests. While we have negotiated free trade agreements with Peru and Colombia, neither has passed the U.S. Congress. It is far from clear that the U.S.-Peru agreement will even be considered in Congress before the Andean preference program expires at the end of this year, and there is no chance at all that the U.S.-Colombia agreement will be. We should extend the Andean preference program for these countries to avoid a lapse in benefits prior to the implementation of any free-trade agreement with them. Such a lapse would be disruptive to Peru and Colombia. And such a lapse would be disruptive to U.S. businesses, as well. It may be that there are good arguments for ending the program with respect to Bolivia and Ecuador. But again, I believe that we should give Congress time to examine these arguments as well as any counterarguments and make a reasoned judgment about the future of the program. That is why I am sponsoring the Emergency Trade Program Extension Act of 2006. This bill will extend both GSP and the Andean Trade Preference Act for 2 years. This is a short-term extension to allow the Congress to have hearings and consider in depth what should be done with these programs. I do not believe that we should let these programs expire without the benefit of a thorough analysis of their merits and failings. Some may argue that this legislation is unnecessary. They may say that we can allow these programs to expire, consider them in depth next year, and then renew them retroactively if we so decide. Indeed, we have done that before. But that is very disruptive, both to U.S. businesses and the countries that rely upon these programs. The uncertainty of whether the programs will be renewed retroactively, or renewed at all, undermines the goals of encouraging investment in the beneficiary countries. So we should pass this legislation to maintain the integrity of these programs while we consider what to do with them. This legislation also includes a 1-year extension of the third- country fabric provisions in the African Growth and Opportunity Act, or AGOA. These provisions are currently set to expire in September of next year. Those provisions allow Africa's poorest countries to import fabric from countries outside of Africa for use in their apparel industries. These third-country fabric provisions have helped create jobs in desperately poor countries like Lesotho, where one textile worker supports numerous family members. U.S. retailers looking to next year's products are making their sourcing decisions now. If they cannot be confident that Africa will continue to be able to import third- country fabric, then they will stop sourcing from Africa. And tens of thousands of jobs could be lost. This bill is not intended as the final word on AGOA. I fully expect that the next Congress will consider a comprehensive reform of AGOA. Many worthwhile ideas have been proposed. But we do not have time to consider them before Africa will begin to feel the effects of the expiration of third-country fabric provisions next fall. We should give Africa breathing space while Congress completes its work. The suspension of the Doha Round negotiations at the World Trade Organization has sparked a period of soul searching and debate in the trade community both here and abroad. Our trade preference programs should be part of that debate. It simply makes no sense to look at these programs in isolation from the wider discussion about the future of trade policy. And we cannot look at the future of the trading system without considering the treatment of developing countries in that system. For all of these reasons, I am proud to sponsor the Emergency Trade Program Extension Act of 2006. I am proud to note, as well, that this bill is a companion to an identical bill introduced yesterday in the House of Representatives by my friend the ranking Democratic member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel. I applaud his leadership on these issues. And I look forward to working with him to get this important legislation passed into law.