Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, before the Senator objects, may I make one comment?

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask to have the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to take a moment to recognize that today is the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks. That day 5 years ago changed the way we all think about the world. The consequences were profound. We learned that we must be prepared for threats we cannot even imagine. That is why our work here today on the Port Security Improvement Act is so important. I was pleased to help write the Port Security Improvement Act of 2006, the amendment before the Senate today. I am proud of our work. Working together, we have crafted legislation to help keep our ports safe and our economy strong. The legislation strikes a balance. It protects Americans, and it preserves the free flow of commerce upon which our prosperity depends. Last year, nearly 11 million containers came into our country. That is more than 30,000 containers every day. They arrive at more than 300 ports all across our borders. That number of containers is expected to double over the next 3 years. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency is responsible for ensuring that not one of those millions of containers--not one--carries with it anything that could harm us. It is a daunting task. It would be tempting to say we should slow this torrent of containers to a trickle. It would be tempting to say we should allow Customs and Border Protection unlimited time to do its job to protect us from harm, but slowing trade to a trickle would also cause America great harm. It would cripple our economy. Ensuring security is only half of the work of Customs and Border Protection. The agency is also charged with carrying on the centuries- old responsibility of its predecessor, the U.S. Customs Service, to facilitate the commerce so critical to keeping our economy strong. Cross-border trade accounts for fully a quarter of the American economy--one-quarter. How, then, do we keep this flow of trade both safe and smooth? I believe this legislation tries to do just that. We have given Customs and Border Protection more tools and resources to accomplish both of its missions. We authorize $1.2 billion in port security grant assistance, and we authorize another $750 million for key programs such as the Container Security Initiative and the automated targeting system. We also authorize funds to fulfill the promise of the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism. We provide the personnel to validate supply chain security for the thousands of American importers eager to participate in the program and keep their cargo moving. I also strongly support testing and deployment of fully integrated container scanning systems capable of increasing the security of containers in foreign ports while maintaining or improving the processing time of just-in-time cargoes. The more we can know about a container before it gets to America, the safer we all will be. But technology is not a panacea. We need people at our land and seaports to detect and deter contraband or unlawful persons from entering our country. My State of Montana is a border State. In Montana, we have new cargo examination equipment, but we don't have new personnel to run it. We need people to ensure the robust enforcement of our trade laws and trade agreements upon which American companies and workers rely. That is why, in the 2002 Homeland Security Act, Congress prohibited any diminution in Customs trade facilitation and enforcement functions. And we prohibited any reduction or consolidation of the personnel performing those functions. In violation of that act, personnel dedicated to revenue collection and trade enforcement are increasingly being asked to assist with port security-related functions for which they are neither trained nor equipped. Since 2003, trade personnel numbers decreased by as much as 15 percent. This legislation reverses this damaging trend by requiring Customs and Border Protection to restore personnel vital to its commercial mission. At the same time, we ensure sufficient numbers of security- focused personnel by adding uniformed officers at every one of our Nation's ports. We can do both, and we need to do both. The legislation also creates an Office of International Trade within Customs and Border Protection. The new office would be headed by an Assistant Commissioner for International Trade, reporting directly to the Commissioner. This office is responsible for supervising and giving policy direction to employees before the agency's commercial and revenue functions. This structural change is designed to give voice to the concerns of commerce. It will guarantee that the concerns of commerce receive due consideration. And an International Trade Policy Committee within Customs and Border Protection will assist the Commissioner in coordinating with the Assistant Secretary for Policy. The committee will help them implement policies related to the commercial customs and trade facilitation functions within the Agency. Mr. President, if security at our ports is compromised, then the international trade that drives our Nation's economy could grind to a halt. But if security at our ports does not protect the overall health of the international commerce system, then that would not provide Americans real security. We need to do both. I am very pleased with the legislation before us. We still need to address other critical transportation security issues, such as rail and transit security, which this legislation doesn't do. But the pending amendment is a critical component of a national strategy on homeland and economic security. This legislation would not have been completed without the tireless efforts of my colleagues. I thank and commend Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens especially for his very helpful work, Murray, Collins, Lieberman, Coleman, and my dear friend, the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley. Too many staff to name have worked countless hours to get this legislation ready, and I thank them. Working together, I believe we have created something that both safeguards our Nation's ports and protects American prosperity. America needs us to do both. That is why America needs us to pass this important legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns with the Finance Committee staff be allowed on the Senate floor today and for the duration of the debate on the Port Security Improvement Act: John Lageson, Tory Cyr, and Brett Youngerman.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wish to talk about one tribute we can make to the brave men and women who have put their lives on the line and returned home wounded. We need to ensure that those who have sacrificed for our country receive their due benefits. We need to see that they are taken care of when they return home. As of July 2006, nearly 20,000 members of our Armed Forces have been wounded in action in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Many of these soldiers are now permanently disabled. Of these brave soldiers who have been wounded, nearly 5,000 are members of the National Guard and Reserves. Our National Guard and Reserves are carrying a huge burden in our current conflicts abroad. Ninety-five percent of America's National Guard combat battalions and special operations have been mobilized since September 11, 2001. Many of these wounded soldiers come from rural States such as my home State of Montana. In Montana, we have the highest proportion of veterans per capita of any State. According to the most recent census, veterans account for nearly one out of every six people in Montana. And veterans and families of veterans constitute a significant portion of the population in rural States throughout the country. When not deployed, many National Guardsmen and reservists in my home State support their families with second and even third jobs. At any time, they can be deployed overseas, to our borders, or even to aid with national disasters such as hurricanes or forest fires. If they are injured or disabled, however, many become unable to perform the jobs they did before deployment. They will need to transition into a new job or career. It is our duty to provide the proper means for soldiers to make that transition. It is our duty to help them to live as independent citizens. It seems that the opposite is true. Since August 2002, the share of veterans collecting unemployment insurance has nearly doubled. During any given year, half a million veterans across the Nation experience homelessness. We are not providing enough resources for veterans looking for work. We are too often failing our injured and our disabled veterans. Many seriously injured and disabled veterans simply do not know what they are going to do once they return home. We need to help these young men and women. That is why today I offer a special tribute. Today I am introducing the Help Our Patriots Employment Act of 2006, and I call it the HOPE Act. The HOPE Act would provide a tax incentive to employers to hire service-connected disabled veterans, and the HOPE Act would increase funding for job training transition services for injured and disabled veterans. The work opportunity and the welfare-to-work tax credits expired at the end of 2005. We all hope these credits can be extended soon. They have gone without extension for too long now. In addition, I introduced legislation that would permanently extend and improve upon the work opportunity and welfare-to-work tax credits. My HOPE Act provides employers with a graduated tax credit equal to 25 percent of wages for disabled veterans working between 120 hours and 399 hours, and a 40-percent tax credit on wages for disabled veterans working more than 400 hours, on up to $12,000 in wages per employee. In addition to this tax credit for businesses, my bill would increase funding for the Veterans' Employment and Training Service Program, the VETS Program, under the Department of Labor. In my home State of Montana, the VETS Program has two staff members to cover the entire State. Montana covers more than 145,000 square miles. It is simply not possible for this essential program to reach every veteran who needs career help--not with two people. For many injured veterans, it will be a long journey simply to get back on their feet. My legislation will not address all their needs, but it will help. One thing is clear: This problem is not going away. It is getting worse. That is why we need to make sure we are doing everything we can to help injured and disabled veterans. These heroes have given so much for our country--so much. They have sacrificed so much on the battlefield. They return to a life much different from the one they left. We need to ensure they are given the resources to transition and succeed in life when they return home. Mr. President, let me close where I began. Let me honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. I close by reading the names of those from Montana who have died fighting for our country since September 11: PVT Krostofor Stonesifer, SGT Michael Bews, LT Edward Saltz, PVT Owen Witt, LTC Benjamin Watson, CPL Dean Pratt, CPL Kane Funke, SGT Aaron Holleyman, CPL Nathan Wood, SGT Robbie McNary, CPL Bill Ellingham, CPL Josh Timmerman, SGT Jack Tankersly, CPL Steve Slavik, CPL Nicholas Bloem, LT Josh Hyland, SGT Travis Arndt, PVT Andrew Bedard, CPT Michael MacKinnon, CPL Raleigh Smith, and CPL Phillip Baucus. May their memory be a blessing in the lives of all of our families. May our Nation never forget their sacrifice. And may we always honor those who have fought to defend our freedom.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, west of Baghdad in Iraq's Al Anbar Province, the 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion of the 1st Marine Division rested for the night. On Saturday, June 29, a suicide bomber crashed his vehicle into a barrack. The structure collapsed. Four marines died. Among them was a 28-year-old corporal named Phillip Baucus. He is my nephew. When I first took my wife Wanda to the family ranch many years ago, about 23, young Phillip, 5 or 6 years old, received Wanda. He walked up to Wanda and said: Wanda, welcome to the ranch. He had a wildflower in his hand and he gave it to Wanda. That is how he was. Wanda and I had the sad duty at Dover Air Force Base to receive Phillip's casket. When we asked, they said, no, we could not touch his casket, but they reconsidered--the colonel did--and said, yes, it was all right for Wanda and let Wanda touch Phillip's casket. Beneath the flag that draped the casket, Wanda slipped a wildflower. That is how she is. North of Helena, in Montana's Lewis and Clark County, Phillip came to his final rest. On the afternoon of Sunday, August 6, more than 500 Montanans gathered under the willow trees of the family ranch to remember Phillip. A Chinook helicopter flew overhead, a massive American flag draped below it. White doves were released into the sky. A bagpipe played ``Amazing Grace,'' and the ``Marine Corps Hymn.'' Bugles played ``Taps.'' The funeral ended with a family tradition, a tradition that Phillip loved. We packed 2 pounds of black gunpowder, fired an anvil weighing about 60 pounds several hundred feet into the air. It fell to the ground with a heavy thud. Marines folded the flag that had covered Phillip's casket into a triangle and handed it to his widow Katherine. Phillip and Katherine had been married at that very same place less than a year before. Phillip's Marine colleague, Sergeant Raymond Rios, spoke to Phillip saying: ``Baucus, you will always be here with every shadow, the sun shining and the trees blowing.'' My brother John and I planted two trees there a few weeks ago on the ranch in memory of Phillip. They will blow in the winds and grow in the sun there in his memory. It was at that ranch where he was laid to rest on the same mountain where my father lies. In the days since, I have been moved by the hundreds of handwritten notes I have received from Montanans, friends, and colleagues. I have been moved by these many tributes. In the Native American culture there is no greater honor than dying for your community, being a warrior. American Indians have answered this country's call to service in numbers far greater than their fair share of the population. When injured or killed in war, Native American service men and women are honored as fallen warriors. Their praises are sung before every powwow and special occasion. I visited several Indian tribes last August. Time after time, I was honored when the tribal leaders honored Phillip as a fallen warrior. Following one tribal council meeting, an elderly grandmother asked if she could honor Phillip. She told me she had two grandsons in Iraq. She wanted to express her condolences to my family. She had made a quilt with the American flags interspersed throughout the quilt for the fallen warrior. She asked me to turn around. And reaching on her tiptoes, she draped the quilt around my shoulders. Then she embraced me. (The remarks of Mr. Baucus pertaining to the introduction of S. 3865 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my very good friend from Nevada. I thank you very much. And I thank all my colleagues very much. We are one big family here in the Senate and in the country, and we are a great country. We will see our way through all this.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 15 minutes to speak in morning business.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wish to talk about one tribute we can make to the brave men and women who have put their lives on the line and returned home wounded. We need to ensure that those who have sacrificed for our country receive their due benefits. We need to see that they are taken care of when they return home. As of July 2006, nearly 20,000 members of our Armed Forces have been wounded in action in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Many of these soldiers are now permanently disabled. Of these brave soldiers who have been wounded, nearly 5,000 are members of the National Guard and Reserves. Our National Guard and Reserves are carrying a huge burden in our current conflicts abroad. Ninety-five percent of America's National Guard combat battalions and special operations have been mobilized since September 11, 2001. Many of these wounded soldiers come from rural States such as my home State of Montana. In Montana, we have the highest proportion of veterans per capita of any State. According to the most recent census, veterans account for nearly one out of every six people in Montana. And veterans and families of veterans constitute a significant portion of the population in rural States throughout the country. When not deployed, many National Guardsmen and reservists in my home State support their families with second and even third jobs. At any time, they can be deployed overseas, to our borders, or even to aid with national disasters such as hurricanes or forest fires. If they are injured or disabled, however, many become unable to perform the jobs they did before deployment. They will need to transition into a new job or career. It is our duty to provide the proper means for soldiers to make that transition. It is our duty to help them to live as independent citizens. It seems that the opposite is true. Since August 2002, the share of veterans collecting unemployment insurance has nearly doubled. During any given year, half a million veterans across the Nation experience homelessness. We are not providing enough resources for veterans looking for work. We are too often failing our injured and our disabled veterans. Many seriously injured and disabled veterans simply do not know what they are going to do once they return home. We need to help these young men and women. That is why today I offer a special tribute. Today I am introducing the Help Our Patriots Employment Act of 2006, and I call it the HOPE Act. The HOPE Act would provide a tax incentive to employers to hire service-connected disabled veterans, and the HOPE Act would increase funding for job training transition services for injured and disabled veterans. The work opportunity and the welfare-to-work tax credits expired at the end of 2005. We all hope these credits can be extended soon. They have gone without extension for too long now. In addition, I introduced legislation that would permanently extend and improve upon the work opportunity and welfare-to-work tax credits. My HOPE Act provides employers with a graduated tax credit equal to 25 percent of wages for disabled veterans working between 120 hours and 399 hours, and a 40-percent tax credit on wages for disabled veterans working more than 400 hours, on up to $12,000 in wages per employee. In addition to this tax credit for businesses, my bill would increase funding for the Veterans' Employment and Training Service Program, the VETS Program, under the Department of Labor. In my home State of Montana, the VETS Program has two staff members to cover the entire State. Montana covers more than 145,000 square miles. It is simply not possible for this essential program to reach every veteran who needs career help--not with two people. For many injured veterans, it will be a long journey simply to get back on their feet. My legislation will not address all their needs, but it will help. One thing is clear: This problem is not going away. It is getting worse. That is why we need to make sure we are doing everything we can to help injured and disabled veterans. These heroes have given so much for our country--so much. They have sacrificed so much on the battlefield. They return to a life much different from the one they left. We need to ensure they are given the resources to transition and succeed in life when they return home. Mr. President, let me close where I began. Let me honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. I close by reading the names of those from Montana who have died fighting for our country since September 11: PVT Krostofor Stonesifer, SGT Michael Bews, LT Edward Saltz, PVT Owen Witt, LTC Benjamin Watson, CPL Dean Pratt, CPL Kane Funke, SGT Aaron Holleyman, CPL Nathan Wood, SGT Robbie McNary, CPL Bill Ellingham, CPL Josh Timmerman, SGT Jack Tankersly, CPL Steve Slavik, CPL Nicholas Bloem, LT Josh Hyland, SGT Travis Arndt, PVT Andrew Bedard, CPT Michael MacKinnon, CPL Raleigh Smith, and CPL Phillip Baucus. May their memory be a blessing in the lives of all of our families. May our Nation never forget their sacrifice. And may we always honor those who have fought to defend our freedom.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I favor repeal of the estate tax. The estate tax often forces ranchers and farmers in my home State of Montana to have to struggle just to pass their land on to their children. But the political games that Congressional leaders played with this bill are not the way to get the job done. I hope that cooler heads can prevail and that we can work together for sensible reform in the future.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, first, I want to thank Chairman Grassley, Senator Kennedy, and Chairman Enzi for their hard work and cooperation on this bill. I like the final product. It strikes a balance between getting plans funded and not forcing employers out of the defined benefit pension system. It provides certainty for cash balance plans. It makes certain that workers can diversify their investments out of employer stock. It makes changes that will help workers save for their retirements. And it assures that workers and retirees will receive clear information about the health of their plans and their individual situations. I don't like for one minute, however, the process that got us here. Chairman Grassley and I worked very closely to include tax extenders on this bill. We had an agreement with the House to do so. We were ready to sign the conference agreement. Instead, we had the rug pulled out from under us. The pension bill now comes to us without the extenders. There is a reason for the conference process. It was a process that was working. I think that we should have continued down that path. But as I said, this is a good pension bill of which we can be proud. We need to pass it. I will not go through all the provisions in the bill. They are too numerous to do that. But there are some points that I want to highlight. First let me address single-employer pension plan funding. When I spoke last November about the pension bill that was then pending in the Senate, I asked my colleagues to remember that we are here to protect workers' pension benefits. That has been our goal from day one. And that is what this bill does. The current system is broken. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation--the Federal corporation that guarantees defined benefit pension benefits--has a $23 billion deficit. The existing rules and temporary congressional fixes have created unpredictable funding requirements. As a result, employers are freezing their plans as a preliminary to leaving the defined benefit system altogether. And many view defined benefit plans as an antiquated vehicle for delivering retirement benefits. How do we fix the system? We would all like to get the plans fully funded. We would all like not to increase funding requirements too much for employers who cannot afford it. We would all like to see defined benefit plans continue. That is especially true for the 44 million Americans now receiving retirement benefits from defined benefit plans or earning benefits under them. Addressing these goals required a delicate balance. The balance that we struck is one of which I am proud. It reflects difficult compromises by all parties. There is no perfect answer here. But I think that we came as close as we could. Employers will not be able to make promises that they don't fund. Employers and unions will not be able to negotiate for benefit increases without paying for them. Workers will have to push for better funding if they want to continue to earn benefits. The medicine may not taste very good. But it is necessary to keep the patient alive. At the same time, there are some patients that are so sick that they need more than harsh-tasting medicine. They need some understanding and a chance to recover. We are giving that chance to the airlines. Maybe that way we can avoid the harm that will come to the workers and retirees--and the PBGC--if the plans terminate. Second, let me address cash balance plans. We have been struggling with the difficult problems of a new form of defined benefit plan called a ``cash balance plan'' for many years. Most pension experts recognize the cash balance design and other hybrid plan designs as the future of the defined benefit system. And that future is in limbo until we provide certainty as to the governing rules. Yet there is a real concern about age discrimination and what happens to workers who get caught up in the switch from a traditional plan to a cash balance plan. This bill once again strikes a balance. It is a balance that is not likely to make anyone completely happy. We have dealt with the law going forward. We intend no inference to what the rules were prior to enactment. We will leave the past to the courts. But in the future, employers and workers will know the guiding principles. I expect that as a result, we will see new life in the cash balance world. And we also make sure that workers are protected. Third, let me address diversification. While defined benefit plans are important, many Americans today receive retirement benefits from their defined contribution plans. What a tragedy it was in Enron and other situations when workers had their entire retirement wrapped up in Enron stock. They could not get out even if they wanted to. The new law will require plans to allow workers to diversify. Workers won't have to. It will be their choice. But they will have that choice. Fourth, automatic enrollment: I am proud that this bill included a provision that I have been pushing for some time to allow 401(k) plans and 403(b) arrangements to automatically enroll workers unless they opt out. This means that the workers' salaries will be reduced to put savings into the retirement plan unless the worker instructs the employer not to do this withholding. And we let employers automatically increase the amount saved each year unless the worker says no. Many studies have found that this ``opt-out'' approach significantly increases workers'' retirement savings. Fifth, let me address the saver's credit and permanence of provisions from the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, which people call EGTRRA. The bill makes permanent the EGTRRA savings provisions affecting plans and IRAs. I worked very closely with Chairman Grassley to get the savings provisions included in EGTRRA in the first place. And I am very happy that this bill makes them permanent. Perhaps more importantly, we made the saver's credit permanent. The saver's credit would have expired at the end of 2006. And for the first time, we indexed the saver's credit so that worker eligibility will not shrink over time because of inflation. Sixth, we include the tax court modernization package. This package has passed Finance Committee three times. It is designed to help bring parity between the tax court and Article III courts. And it will modernize the tax court's pension system. This package is long overdue. Seventh, we include important incentives for charitable giving. These include measures to promote land conservation. And these include a provision to encourage IRA rollovers to charitable organizations.' I have been working since 2001 to allow ranchers and farmers to claim a special tax incentive to ensure their valuable production land preserved for generations of Montanans in the future. In fact, my first hearing as chairman of the Finance Committee in 2001 was on tax incentives for land conservation. There are numerous other provisions in this 900-plus page bill of which we can all be proud. We have taken on a very difficult and complex subject and struck the right balance. I just regret that we could not do it in the proper way and finished the conference. There were important provisions included in the conference bill that are not included in the pension bill before us. We all know what they are and the reasons they are not included. I am sorry that the Senate process has come to such a sad state. But after nearly 3 years, several hearings, and countless missed deadlines, the Senate is about to pass a monumental pension bill. It will enhance retirement security for millions of Americans. There are many who deserve thanks for this legislation. I want to thank Chairman Enzi and Senator Kennedy from the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. They provided excellent leadership and cooperation. I want to thank their staffs, many of whom spent sleepless nights getting this work done. In particular, I thank Diann Howland, David Thompson, Greg Dean, Portia Wu, Holly Fechner, and Terri Holloway. They played an important role developing the retirement security provisions in this bill. I also to thank my good friend Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Finance Committee, for his commitment to the retirement security of Americans. I want to thank some staff members in particular. I appreciate the cooperation we received from the Republican staff, especially Kolan Davis, Mark Prater, John O'Neill, Dean Zerbe, Elizabeth Paris, Chris Javens, Cathy Barre, Anne Freeman, Elizabeth Goff and Nick Wyatt. I thank the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation and Senate Legislative Counsel for their service, including Jim Fransen, Mark Mathiesen, Stacey Kern, Mark McGunagle, Carolyn Smith, Patricia McDermott, Nicole Flax, Roger Colinvaux, Ron Schultz and Gordon Clay. I also thank my staff for their tireless effort and dedication, including Russ Sullivan, Pat Heck, Bill Dauster, Jon Selib, Melissa Mueller, Rebecca Baxter, and Ryan Abraham. I also thank our dedicated fellows, Stuart Sirkin, Tiffany Smith, Mary Baker, and Tom Louthan. I especially want to express my sincere gratitude to Judy Miller. Her extraordinary efforts and contributions on this legislation went over and above the call of duty. I hold her in the highest esteem. And I can't thank her enough for her counsel and professionalism. Finally, I thank our hardworking law clerks and interns: Christal Edwards, Justin Kraske, Joseph Adams, Tom Duppong, Jonathan Lebe, Robert Little, Chris Polhemus, Diana Ramos, Tara Rose, John Schiltz, Thad Seegmiller, Gwen Stoltz, and Matthew Wergin. This legislation really was a team effort. And the product will do a lot of good. I am glad that we have finally reached the day where we can look forward to it soon becoming law. A fair and good explanation of the bill can be found in The Technical Explanation of HR 4 prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, along with Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, I am introducing the Wage Index Accuracy Improvement Act. This bill would help ensure access to quality, affordable health care in rural America. And this bill would improve accuracy, reduce volatility, and ease uncertainty in the way that Medicare pays hospitals. Medicare pays most hospitals through the inpatient prospective payment system, or IPPS. Under the IPPS, Medicare pays hospitals a standardized amount for each patient discharged. The Government's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, adjusts this amount for local wages, with a mechanism known as the area wage index. CMS intends that the area wage index help adjust for the wide variation of prices for labor and supplies across the Nation. After adjusting for wages, CMS then multiplies the standardized amount by the relative weight of the diagnosis--the diagnosis related group or DRG--to determine the total payment to the hospital. CMS further increases payments if the hospital is a teaching hospital, cares for a disproportionate share of low-income patients, or treats an exceptionally costly case. Rural providers have had concerns about the accuracy of the wage index. Largely in response to these concerns, Congress enacted an important provision as part of the Medicare Modernization Act, or MMA, in 2003. For hospitals with wage indexes below 1.0--that is, hospitals where CMS thinks that local wages are below average--section 403 of the MMA reduced the portion of the standardized amount subject to wages to 62 percent, down from about 70 percent. This provision increased payments to hospitals in low-wage areas by an estimated $5.2 billion over 10 years. And this change was an important step toward ensuring access to quality, affordable health care in rural areas. Nonetheless, significant problems with the wage index still exist. Some of those problems relate to section 304 of the Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2001. In that law, Congress required CMS to collect data on hospitals' occupational mix, in order to remove incentives to employ a relatively more expensive workforce. For instance, a hospital that employs predominantly higher paid registered nurses would typically have higher labor costs than a facility employing mostly lower paid licensed practical nurses. In an effort to remove the influence of these staffing choices on Medicare hospital payments, section 304 required CMS to adjust the wage index for occupational mix. Congress intended through section 304 to bring greater accuracy to the payment system, leading to fairer reimbursement for hospitals. I am concerned that this provision may well have the opposite effect. CMS collected data for occupational mix adjustment in 2004. But given concerns over the accuracy of the data, in fiscal years 2005 and 2006, CMS applied only a 10-percent adjustment for occupational mix. CMS proposed the same adjustment--10 percent--for fiscal year 2007. On April 3, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ordered CMS to apply 100-percent of the occupational mix adjustment for fiscal year 2007. The court directed CMS to complete data collection and measurement by September 30, 2006, and then apply the adjustment in full. Mr. President, if CMS proceeds with a 100 percent occupational mix adjustment, hospital payments will be subject to inaccuracy, uncertainty, and volatility. Congress can prevent these outcomes, by passing the Wage Index Accuracy Improvement Act that we introduce today. This bill would maintain the current 10 percent occupational mix adjustment for the next 2 fiscal years, giving CMS time to collect accurate data. The bill would require CMS to report on its data collection for the occupational mix adjustment by January 1, 2008. Both of these actions will give hospitals more time--and more information-- to better understand the effect of the occupational mix adjustment. Mr. President, Medicare pays for more than $100 billion of hospital inpatient services every year. This system should be as accurate as possible. This system should not be subject to swings resulting from quickly-collected data, applied at the last minute. I urge my colleagues to join Chairman Grassley and me in passing this important legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, along with Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, I am introducing the Wage Index Accuracy Improvement Act. This bill would help ensure access to quality, affordable health care in rural America. And this bill would improve accuracy, reduce volatility, and ease uncertainty in the way that Medicare pays hospitals. Medicare pays most hospitals through the inpatient prospective payment system, or IPPS. Under the IPPS, Medicare pays hospitals a standardized amount for each patient discharged. The Government's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, adjusts this amount for local wages, with a mechanism known as the area wage index. CMS intends that the area wage index help adjust for the wide variation of prices for labor and supplies across the Nation. After adjusting for wages, CMS then multiplies the standardized amount by the relative weight of the diagnosis--the diagnosis related group or DRG--to determine the total payment to the hospital. CMS further increases payments if the hospital is a teaching hospital, cares for a disproportionate share of low-income patients, or treats an exceptionally costly case. Rural providers have had concerns about the accuracy of the wage index. Largely in response to these concerns, Congress enacted an important provision as part of the Medicare Modernization Act, or MMA, in 2003. For hospitals with wage indexes below 1.0--that is, hospitals where CMS thinks that local wages are below average--section 403 of the MMA reduced the portion of the standardized amount subject to wages to 62 percent, down from about 70 percent. This provision increased payments to hospitals in low-wage areas by an estimated $5.2 billion over 10 years. And this change was an important step toward ensuring access to quality, affordable health care in rural areas. Nonetheless, significant problems with the wage index still exist. Some of those problems relate to section 304 of the Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2001. In that law, Congress required CMS to collect data on hospitals' occupational mix, in order to remove incentives to employ a relatively more expensive workforce. For instance, a hospital that employs predominantly higher paid registered nurses would typically have higher labor costs than a facility employing mostly lower paid licensed practical nurses. In an effort to remove the influence of these staffing choices on Medicare hospital payments, section 304 required CMS to adjust the wage index for occupational mix. Congress intended through section 304 to bring greater accuracy to the payment system, leading to fairer reimbursement for hospitals. I am concerned that this provision may well have the opposite effect. CMS collected data for occupational mix adjustment in 2004. But given concerns over the accuracy of the data, in fiscal years 2005 and 2006, CMS applied only a 10-percent adjustment for occupational mix. CMS proposed the same adjustment--10 percent--for fiscal year 2007. On April 3, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ordered CMS to apply 100-percent of the occupational mix adjustment for fiscal year 2007. The court directed CMS to complete data collection and measurement by September 30, 2006, and then apply the adjustment in full. Mr. President, if CMS proceeds with a 100 percent occupational mix adjustment, hospital payments will be subject to inaccuracy, uncertainty, and volatility. Congress can prevent these outcomes, by passing the Wage Index Accuracy Improvement Act that we introduce today. This bill would maintain the current 10 percent occupational mix adjustment for the next 2 fiscal years, giving CMS time to collect accurate data. The bill would require CMS to report on its data collection for the occupational mix adjustment by January 1, 2008. Both of these actions will give hospitals more time--and more information-- to better understand the effect of the occupational mix adjustment. Mr. President, Medicare pays for more than $100 billion of hospital inpatient services every year. This system should be as accurate as possible. This system should not be subject to swings resulting from quickly-collected data, applied at the last minute. I urge my colleagues to join Chairman Grassley and me in passing this important legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to adopt the Grassley- Baucus amendment to the bill H.R. 5864--The Returned Americans Protection Act of 2006. This bill provides needed resources to the United States Repatriation Program, which is currently assisting U.S. citizens who are returning to United States from Lebanon. The United States Repatriation Program was established by title XI, section 1113 of the Social Security Act to provide temporary assistance to U.S. citizens and their dependents who have been identified by the Department of State as having returned, or been brought from a foreign country to the U.S. because of destitution, illness, war, threat of war, or a similar crisis. The program is currently being used to provide assistance to citizens returning from Lebanon, but estimates indicate that the program could reach its statutory spending cap at any moment. The cap is currently $1 million per fiscal year. We have been asked by HHS to increase the cap for fiscal year 2006 to $6 million. The Grassley-Baucus amendment lifts the cap for fiscal year 2006 from $1 million to $6 million. The amendment also includes an offset from the President's fiscal year 2006 budget to use the National Directory of New Hires, NDNH, to improve the administration of the Food Stamp Program. Access to the NDNH will help USDA verify wage and employment information on food stamp applications. That proposal was scored by CBO has providing $11 million in savings over 10 years. We have worked with the Department of Health and Human Services and other Government agencies in creating this legislation. We believe we have a reasonable and fiscally responsible solution to this relatively minor problem. We urge the Senate to adopt our amendment, pass the bill, and send the bill to the House for their immediate consideration. This bill involves a small and, thankfully, seldom-used Federal program. But as recent news events have made clear, this is a program that can provide much-needed assistance to our constituents during difficult circumstances. We should not allow these important resources to be needlessly delayed.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, 3 years ago, Burma's military junta arrested democracy advocate Aung San Suu Kyi and returned her to the house arrest that she has endured with only intermittent periods of release since 1989. Three years ago, Congress enacted the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, and we have renewed the sanctions called for under that legislation every year since then. That legislation is set to expire this summer, and we are now considering whether to extend its provisions for another 3 years. Tragically, Burma's human rights record has worsened, rather than improved, in the 3 years since Congress enacted the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. Earlier this year, the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi was extended for another year. More than 1,100 political prisoners languish in jail in Burma, prevented from expressing their aspirations for a democratic government. The military junta ruling Burma still refuses to enter into a dialog with the opposition National League for Democracy. Its brutal treatment of ethnic minorities and advocates of democracy remains unabated. Forced labor is a widespread problem, and labor activists are regularly imprisoned for trying to combat it. The failure of Burma's dictators to address the HIV/AIDS and avian influenza situation in the country contributes to the horrific situation of the Burmese people. And the regime's effects are not confined to Burma's borders. Thousands of refugees have fled to Thailand, Malaysia, India, and Bangladesh. Burma is the world's second largest opium producer, supplying 90 percent of the heroin from Southeast Asia. It is also the single largest producer of methamphetamine in the region. One year ago, nearly to the day, I stood on the Senate floor and questioned whether these economic sanctions were the most appropriate tool for bringing about the kind of change we need to see in Burma. The arguments against economic sanctions continue to be quite compelling. First of all, they have a very poor record of success. The kinds of governments that merit this sort of treatment are not sensitive to international opprobrium, nor are they swayed by it to make changes. Second, economic sanctions tend to hurt the people that they are intended to help. Ordinary people lose their jobs, while the military and its leaders are left untouched. Third, severing economic ties shuts off an important avenue of dialog that can promote change. Those who support the sanctions point out, rightly, that Burma's rulers are not willing to engage in dialog, either at home or with its neighbors. It is plain that Burma's military dictators are not interested in being members of the international community. They have rebuffed the United Nations. And they have refused to allow U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Paulo Sergio Pinheiro to visit Burma since November 2003. They are equally uninterested in improving the lives of their people, or participating in the global economy. While more and more nations have turned to freer markets to bolster their growth, Burma has actually worked to dismantle fundamental economic institutions like property rights, contract enforcement, sustainable fiscal policies, and a reliable currency. It is difficult to imagine an environment less conducive to growth and less attractive to foreign investment. Revenues from oil and gas exports flow to the regime. Businesses and farmers are routinely shaken down. And productive assets are concentrated in the hands of the regime's cronies. In December of last year, America led the effort that produced the U.N. Security Council's first-ever discussion of the human rights abuses in Burma. I welcome the administration's efforts to increase international pressure on the military dictatorship. But if we are serious about trying to isolate the junta through sanctions, we cannot act alone. The European Union has also imposed sanctions on Burma, but neighboring countries continue to trade with Burma and to direct investment there. The administration needs to work with other countries, especially the countries in the region Thailand, China, India--that are still economically engaged with the dictatorship to intensify the pressure on the regime. The countries in the region have the most to lose from the worsening of the situation in Burma. As the oppression and abuse continue, more refugees will flee across the borders. As the junta focuses on enriching itself and ignoring the needs of its people, more drugs will flow across the border, and the risk of diseases like HIV/AIDS, malaria, antibiotic-resistant tuberculosis, and avian influenzas will increase in the region. Despite my reservations about the effectiveness of sanctions to effect change, I will support this resolution, extending the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act for a further 3 years. This extension adds our voice to the voice of the Burmese people, muffled by the oppressive regime, in calling out for democracy and human rights. It is my hope that our action today will increase the awareness of the worsening human rights situation and bolster international support for democracy in Burma.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, over 70 years ago one of Montana's most renowned political figures, Senator Burton K. Wheeler, attended a meeting with President Franklin D. Roosevelt where be proposed building the Fort Peck Dam in Central Montana. Fort Peck would be the largest hydraulic earth-filled dam in the world requiring over 11,000 workers at peak construction. At a pricetag of $75 million, the cost of construction was large even by today's standards. Fifteen minutes after Senator Wheeler's meeting with President Roosevelt had begun, Senator Wheeler walked out with a promise from President Roosevelt to have the Army Corps of Engineers build Fort Peck Dam. Construction began in 1933. While it has taken this Congress significantly longer than it did Senator Wheeler to advance the water resource needs of the Nation, I am pleased to have worked with my colleagues--Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, and Bond--to bring the Water Resources Development Act of 2005 to the floor. It has been nearly 6 years since the last WRDA bill was signed into law. Protection of public safety, continued growth of the economy, and the restoration of the environment depend on our timely action. Much has changed since the Corps constructed Fort Peck Dam. Today much of the Corps work in Montana is focused on ecosystem restoration. That is why I included a provision in this bill that will allow the Corps to plan conservation projects on the Yellowstone River that are identified in the course of the Yellowstone River Cumulative Effects Study. A cumulative effects study has been ongoing along the Yellowstone River for several years, authorized by WRDA 1999. This study has been very successful, and has involved close collaboration with the State of Montana, the Yellowstone Conservation District Council, and local conservation districts, among many others. The provision included in the bill today would provide the Corps with the authority to move forward with planning, design and construction of ecosystem restoration projects along the Yellowstone as they are identified by the cumulative effects study. It is so important. All these factors work together. It provides for public participation in the selection of projects, and consultation with the State of Montana, the Yellowstone Conservation District Council, and others. The Yellowstone is the longest free flowing river in the county. Much of southern and eastern Montana depends on the health of the Yellowstone River. It irrigates fields, provides world-class fishing, sustains the tourism sector, and supplies clean drinking water. It is a source of great pride and economic strength for all Montana. This provision will protect the Yellowstone and Montana's recreational heritage for generations to come. While the Corps' mission has evolved to include ecosystem restoration, part of the Corps' central mission is to develop our water resources to maintain our economic competitiveness. Economic development and ecosystem restoration used to be thought of as mutually exclusive. No more. This view is needlessly divisive. This bill includes a provision that has brought together both irrigators and environmentalists. The Intake project on the Yellowstone River will authorize the Corps to work with the Bureau of Reclamation in the design and construction of a dam and diversion works that will help both farmers and endangered fish. Rebuilding the dam at Intake will guarantee farmers water for their crops and allow the endangered sturgeon to pass through the dam, opening 238 miles of river habitat for the endangered fish. This bill also includes urgently needed hurricane protection and coastal restoration projects for the State of Louisiana. Indeed, this bill authorizes the Corps in consultation with the Governor of Louisiana to create a comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan for Louisiana to rehabilitate coastal barrier islands and wetlands that serve as natural hurricane barriers. Unfortunately, some things at the Corps have not changed. In 1938 the Fort Peck Dam tragically failed. Thirty-four workers were swept away in a landslide. Eight lost their lives. The landslide was the result of inaccurate soils and foundation analysis. If we do not learn the lessons of history, we are doomed to repeat them. Sixty-seven years later as Hurricane Katrina bared down on the city of New Orleans, floodwalls around New Orleans failed because of faulty soils analysis. What makes this event even more tragic is that an internal Corps study predicted exactly how the floodwalls would fail, and it went unread. The underlying bill does not go far enough to ensure that the Corps learns from the tragedy of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The Corps needs a robust program of independent peer review and project prioritization. The Corps currently has a $58 billion project backlog and a $2 billion a year project budget. At that pace it would take the Corps roughly 30 years just to work through the backlog of projects. With limited Federal resources, it is important that the Corps separate the wheat from the chaff. In fact I would like to see the prioritization framework extended to cover not only construction projects but ongoing operational activities of the Corps as well. Recreation on the Missouri River generates nearly $85 million a year, while the barge industry provides only $9 million a year. Despite this disparity, the Corps continues to maintain at least a 6-month navigation season on the Missouri unless total water system storage on the Missouri drops below 31 million acre feet. That is dryer than a dust bowl drought. It makes no sense to waste precious taxpayer and water resources to maintain a navigation season on the Missouri in drought years. That is why I was pleased to work with Senators Feingold and McCain to include a provision in their project prioritization amendment that directs the Water Resources Planning Coordinating Committee to recommend to Congress a process for prioritizing ongoing operational activities of the Corps. I am proud of the work my colleagues and I have done on this bill. It's been nearly 6 years in the making, but it has a solid base. This bill keeps our economy competitive. It restores fisheries along the Yellowstone River so our kids can enjoy the great outdoors. It protects the gulf coast from the ravages of hurricanes. But it can do more. With the right amendments, it can reform the way the Corps does business to rebuild the floodwalls of New Orleans and the public's trust in the Corps. I very much hope this amendment succeeds.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I agree with my fellow bill managers.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask the pending amendments be set aside.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk.

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill to address an area that needs more attention, the northern border. We have 5,526 miles of border between the United States and Canada. That is about double the length of our southern border with Mexico. Along that border, about 560 miles of it is in the State of Montana. The terrain is remote in many cases. It is mountainous. Passage is somewhat difficult in some areas. In others it is easy; it is wide open. This amendment will help our Border Patrol cover this vast area by requiring the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a pilot program using unmanned aerial vehicles along that border. In addition to personnel training, we must also employ the latest technologies. The border patrol has already conducted successful tests using UAVs along the southwestern border in Arizona for aliens and detection of those attempting to enter our country illegally. It requires some of the UAVs already provided for in this bill be used to run a pilot program on the northern border similar to that conducted on the southern border. We do not want to compete with our friends in the Southern States, but we want to make it clear that the northern border also needs increased attention. As you can imagine, as the southern border of the United States is tightened, our northern border, which used to be America's back door, is quickly becoming a front door. Customs and Border Patrol report that their No. 1 concern on the southern border is illegal immigration. What is the No. 1 concern on the northern border? Terrorism. Border gangs are going international and admit having ties to al-Qaida and smuggling al-Qaida members into the United States. In Montana, markings from these gangs have been found in the correctional systems, within the walls of our jails, in our detention facilities. Surveillance of our ports is happening daily by nefarious people. It appears that our procedures for checking out vehicles both leaving and entering our country are being looked at by criminals, and it has been reported that these ``dry runs'' are being conducted near Glacier National Park. All of these activities are made easy due to the wide open space and insufficient numbers of law enforcement personnel along our northern border. The ability of our Border Patrol to successfully carry out their daily duties is of critical importance, obviously, to the safety of all Americans. This amendment will give us the tools we need to protect our borders. UAVs are a safe alternative to placing civilians in harm's way, and by introducing a pilot program that helps us patrol our northern border, we are getting on the right track to fighting the war on terrorism and keeping our home front safe. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Cantwell and Murray as cosponsors to the amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask uanimous consent that Senators Craig and Coleman also be cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the modification to the amendment I offered is including the phrase, ``working expeditiously with the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.'' The purpose is to make sure that the Department of Homeland Security's efforts in operating the pilot program along the northern border is one that can work with the FAA because the FAA will probably have to give clearance for air traffic taking off. In addition, the FAA will need to, it is my understanding, offer a waiver for these types of aircraft as they have at the southern border. It is my hope, in working with Senator Burns, that this will clear up potential problems that may arise. I urge adoption of the amendment. I have already spoken about this and why I think it is important. The efforts on the southern border are to combat illegal immigration, and on the northern border they are more to combat terrorism. There are many more reports of potential terrorist casing and transporting of people into the United States from the northern border. It is becoming quite alarming. It is our hope that this will help control the northern border and help with the additional personnel really needed on the northern border. We don't have that personnel. I think this will help make our country more secure. I thank my colleague from Montana, Senator Burns, for making this suggestion. This is a good suggestion. It will strengthen this amendment. I hope it will be agreed to.