Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.

Mr. BAUCUS. What is the regular order, Mr. President?

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I will let that time expire.

Mr. BAUCUS. I rise today to recognize my friend and fellow Montanan, Nikki Kimball. Starting in the early morning hours on June 24, for 19 hours, 26 minutes, and 50 seconds, Nikki put her body through one of the most grueling endurance races in the world. The Western States Endurance Run is a 100-mile trek through the picturesque mountains of northern California. Since the 1970s, runners from six continents have traveled to Squaw Valley to push their bodies to the limit. Following the Western States Trail, once used by the gold and silver miners, the runners traverse some of the most diverse terrain the mountains have to offer. However, this run is more than just a physical challenge, it is a battle of wills between the determined runners and Mother Nature. When I talked to Nikki, the first thing that she mentioned was the excruciating heat. The searing heat not only resulted in intense dehydration, it also caused her shoe leather to constrict on her feet resulting in horrendous blisters. Yet, she forged on. This race became a battle against oneself. As a fellow distance runner, I know the agony that comes with these types of races. Your legs are cramping, your lungs are on fire, and everything in you says stop, sit down, quit. Yet, in the back of your mind there is the little , voice saying keep going, one more mile, you can make it. Nikki listened to that voice, and turned in an epic performance. Though challenged by hundreds of runners, including many professionals, Nikki coupled her elite physical prowess with an iron will, and won the female division, and placed second overall. Her performance at Western States is just another addition to her phenomenal athletic resume. Nikki's running has taken her all over the world and awarded her many honors. She has been selected as the UltraRunning Magazine's North American Runner of the Year, represented the United States on the 100K World Cup team, and has also won the U.S. national snowshoeing championship. Currently, Nikki is training for the White River 50 mile race in Washington, which is a national championship event. Yet, Nikki is defined by more than just her running. For all the effort she puts into sports, she puts just as much time into helping the Gallatin and Park County communities as a physical therapist. Nikki has used her intimate knowledge of athletics to provide accurate insight into many ailments that hinder the citizens of the Gallatin Valley, as well as Paradise Valley, I might add, and all over Montana. Nikki is an inspiration to all of us. She represents the dedication, iron will, and determination that has come to define our great State of Montana. When you talk with Nikki, you see the spirit and energy in her and also the determination and the will. She is a wonderful person. I am so honored she has graced our State with this win. Mr. President, is there any remaining time in morning business?

Mr. BAUCUS

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

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in 1833, a merchant named Edmund Roberts piloted the U.S. warship Peacock to the port of Muscat, the capital of today's Oman. Roberts bore a letter from President Andrew Jackson to the Sultan Said. Three days later, Roberts and the Sultan signed a Treaty of Amity and Commerce. This was the first treaty between America and Oman, 1833. That treaty with Oman was part of a bigger picture, of course. That bigger picture included Siam, today's Thailand, and Cochin China, today's Vietnam. Edmund Roberts also traveled to those countries to initiate broader commercial ties. Today we are considering implementing legislation for another treaty with Oman, a free-trade agreement. Today I ask again, what is the bigger picture? From where I stand, the bigger picture is a grim one. It is a picture colored by resentment, frustration, and broken promises. This agreement, as others in the past, will be overshadowed by the unfair process by which the agreement was considered. The substance of the Oman agreement, like others, is largely good. The Omanis have made real progress in liberalizing their economy, ensuring their markets are open and fair, and improving their labor laws to meet internationally recognized norms. Yet the memories of this agreement that will linger will not be tariffs, labor laws, or intellectual property rights protection. Regrettably, what will linger will be a feeling that these trade agreements were pushed through Congress without appropriate consultation. I don't say that lightly, and I don't say that for partisan purpose because I, frankly, don't regard myself as a partisan; rather, someone who is trying to get the job done, working the Senate's business for the good of all Americans. The Senate considers trade agreements under what is called the fast- track process. Congress agreed to this fast-track process in exchange for the assurance that the Finance and Ways and Means Committees would have an opportunity to influence these trade bills in what is called a mock markup. In these mock markups, the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee can offer amendments to the bills. Under a fast- track process, that is the last time anyone in Congress gets a chance to change the bills. During the mock markup of the Oman agreement--we call them mock markups because they are not traditional markups in which members of the committee can offer amendments which are then passed. Rather, the amendments that are offered and passed are really not part of legislation. Again, they are indications of what should be in the trade agreement, indications to the administration that when it sends up a trade agreement, it would be wise to include these amendments which members believe should be included. During the mock markup of the Oman agreement, the Finance Committee voted 18 to 0 to approve an amendment offered by Senator Conrad. The committee later approved the amended language unanimously. But rather than consider these unanimous actions by the committee, this administration simply stripped the amendment from the implementing legislation that is before us today. There was no consultation. There was no mock conference to fairly consider all views. This kind of process cannot continue. The sad truth is that at the end of the day, it won't. If the administration continues to disrespect the constitutional authority Congress exercises over international trade, there won't be any fast-track process at all. Once trade promotion authority expires mid-next year, it simply won't be renewed. That is not the result I want, but that is where we are headed. I have been warning for years that the process failures threaten to undermine support for the fast-track procedures that allow us to negotiate free- trade agreements, and that is exactly where we are today. Good trade agreements will not receive the support they might because of a widespread failure in the Congress and the administration to listen to the concerns of Congress. And the chance of renewing trade promotion authority when it expires mid-next year is a long shot at best. As I said during the markup in the Finance Committee yesterday, this disrespect for congressional power and prerogatives--after all, it is the Congress under the Constitution which sets trade policy--is not confined just to trade agreements. It runs to other matters as well, an accumulation of matters. It runs to other pressing issues of national concern. The administration dismisses congressional inquiries as unnecessary or harmful--legitimate inquiries--and the administration issues Presidential signing statements indicating the administration's intent to ignore whatever provisions of the law it chooses. I believe the Senate has not been sufficiently aggressive in asserting its authority as a coequal branch of Government. I commend Senator Specter for holding a hearing in the Judiciary Committee on Presidential signing statements. As an institutional matter, and for the good of the country, the Congress must act as a check on the power of the executive branch. Our Founding Fathers set the Constitution up that way. We were set up for one to check the other, not for one to run roughshod over the other, which is beginning to happen. After much consideration and deliberation, I have decided to support this Oman Free Trade Agreement. It was not an easy decision, but I will do so because I believe that Oman and the Omani people should not be punished by the unfair process that tarnishes an otherwise good agreement. Let me assure you that I will not forget these shortcomings and process failures after this vote. Let me assure you as well that the effects of these shortcomings and failures will continue to be felt when we consider further trade agreements and when we consider trade promotion authority next year. The administration must understand that its action on this agreement will have effects far beyond and long after this agreement. I would like to work with the administration to repair the damage done. It will be a difficult job, but for the sake of the Senate and the Nation's economic well-being, we must begin that work. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Finance Committee fellows and interns be allowed the privilege of the floor during the consideration of the Oman Free Trade Agreement: Janis Lazda, Chris Polhemus, J.J. Adams, Gwen Stoltz, Tom Duppong, and Robert Little.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend, Chairman Chuck Grassley, for the way in which he has moved this nomination. It is the right thing to do. I commend him for it. Mr. President, I also support Hank Paulson, this administration's nominee for Secretary of the Treasury. Throughout its history, the Department of the Treasury has required enormous innovation, vision, and perseverance. Our Nation's first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, laid the foundation principles of America's public economy, its credit, its industrial development, and commercial activity. In 1790, Hamilton presented to Congress his plan for public credit, assuming the States' war debts, implementing import duties and excise taxes to repay these debts, and establishing a national bank. The next year, he laid out a plan for an American manufacturing economy, so far ahead of its time that it resonated well into the 20th century. Henry Morgenthau Jr. steered the Treasury for over a decade in peace and in wartime. He defended the dollar against speculation through the 1930s, financed the war effort with war bonds, and ushered in a new system of international financial stability after the Second World War. Secretary James Baker embraced new challenges, including the Latin American banking crisis and the Plaza Accords. The Asian financial turmoil of the 1990s met the able and wise leadership of Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers. They steered the world economy through crises. And they managed our economy's remarkable growth and return to fiscal discipline. Today, leadership and vision are as imperative as during our Nation's founding and in the two centuries since. The challenges are different. The world economy is more complex. China and India are economic powers on the rise. Speculative investments have grown. Twelve European nations are bound by a common currency. Financial markets are deeper, more liquid, and more integrated than ever before. But global economic growth and international trade are fundamentally out of balance. Faced with these challenges, I welcome this administration's nomination of Henry Paulson to become Secretary of the Treasury. I have known Hank for many years. I believe that he is an outstanding choice for this demanding position. Hank has demonstrated his knowledge of financial markets and helped guide them through three decades of transformation. He rose to the helm of Goldman Sachs with our former colleague Governor Jon Corzine, and as sole CEO, presided over some of the most successful years of that company. Hank is broadly respected by his colleagues. He has earned a reputation as a man of boundless energy and a relentless work ethic. Hank proved himself an innovative and prescient thinker, able to consider economic and financial challenges before they are upon us. Today he has nobly answered the call to public service. And he will bring much-needed credibility to our economic message to hard-working Americans, and to the world. Hank Paulson understands that our economy's strength is rooted in the entrepreneurial spirit and the competitive zeal of the American people. He understands just as well that our strength is not a given. That we cannot take our economic preeminence for granted. In the Rose Garden last week, he rightly declared that ``We must take steps to maintain our competitive edge in the world.'' I welcome Hank's determination to take steps to boost our economic competitiveness. I am convinced that economic competitiveness is one of the greatest challenges facing this administration, this Congress, and our Nation. The competitiveness challenge comes from a rising China. China has tripled its share of global trade in 4 years. China has become the world's top information technology exporter. And China has drawn much of the world's investment. The challenge comes from India. India's IT sector has grown 50 percent a year since 1993. India's universities are top-notch. And India's research capabilities attract billions of dollars in investment. The challenge comes from countless smaller economic dynamos in Asia and Europe. These emerging markets have transformed their economies to embrace globalization. Yet our competitiveness challenge also comes from within. America too often looks back at what we have achieved. Rather, we should prepare for tomorrow's challenge. Our broadband infrastructure ranks 16th in the world. Our research and development spending ranks behind Sweden, Finland, Israel, Japan, and South Korea. Three out of 10 Americans do not graduate high school. One-quarter of Americans read below basic levels. And our national savings are negative. These challenges are at our doorstep. We must act. That is why I urge Treasury Secretary Paulson, once confirmed, to lead this administration's engagement with Congress on economic competitiveness. As I have said in several dozen statements on competitiveness over the past months, we can wait no longer to implement a real competitiveness agenda. We in Congress are ready. I have spent much of the past year developing a comprehensive economic competitiveness agenda. This agenda focuses on education as the foundation of a successful economy. In the coming weeks I will introduce legislation that would provide scholarships and create tax incentives for early education, science, math, and engineering teachers. It would provide matching funds to offer universal early education, lower barriers to higher education, and double the number of advanced placement courses in our high schools. My education competitiveness legislation would support afterschool and mentoring programs. It would restore our commitment to Native American education. It would direct grants to outstanding young scientists. And it would encourage companies to get involved in making our schools the world's finest. Upon this foundation of education must stand strong pillars of a competitive economy. One such pillar is energy, which fuels a successful economy. My energy competitiveness legislation would look to the future. It would create the new Advanced Research Projects Agency-- Energy to conduct transformative research and create alternative energy solutions. While this research would look for tomorrow's energy alternative, my legislation would also encourage today's alternative energies, like coal gasification technology, wind, and other alternative fuels. A second pillar of my agenda is the Research Competitiveness Act, which boosts what America does best--innovate. My legislation would simplify and make permanent the research and experimentation tax credit for innovators looking for tomorrow's next big thing. My legislation would provide access to start-up capital for small, research-intensive businesses. And my legislation would encourage support of basic university research. The trade competitiveness initiative is the third pillar of my agenda. Trade is vital to American ranchers, farmers, and businessmen. But they must have a level global playing field. Legislation I have introduced would create a Senate-confirmed trade enforcement official who would be dedicated to guaranteeing that our trading partners play by the rules. It would also give the Treasury Department the tools to keep countries from unfairly manipulating their currencies to keep their exports cheap. A fourth pillar of my agenda is the Savings Competitiveness Act. It would underscore savings as critical to households and vital to a healthy economy. It would make the Saver's Credit into a refundable matching credit. It would make enrollment in 401(k) plans automatic. It would offer savings plans for small business employees. And it would create Young Saver's Accounts for parents' contributions to their children's savings. Friends warned Alexander Hamilton against accepting a position as Treasury Secretary. They said the position was too difficult, too controversial. He replied simply: It is the situation in which I can do the most good. I believe Hank Paulson can also do much good. I hope my colleagues will join me in welcoming this nomination. I hope we can work together to implement a comprehensive agenda to improve America's economic competitiveness. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, I introduce with Senator Gordon Smith a bill to grant Vietnam permanent normal trade relations status. Thirty-one years ago, the lights went out on the relationship between the United States and Vietnam. Diplomatic relations were broken off, and trade ceased. The story between our two countries became one of refugees, prisoners of war, and soldiers missing in action. Hostility and mistrust prevailed. Normalization was a dream of the visionary or the fool. In 1991--16 years after the last helicopters took off from the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon--flickers of reconciliation emerged out of the darkness. In April of that year, President George H.W. Bush presented the Vietnamese government with a roadmap for normalization. That started a process of healing that lasted through successive Republican and Democratic administrations and was supported by courageous bipartisan action in the Congress: Between 1991 and 1993, veterans Senator John Kerry, Senator McCain, and former Senator Bob Smith led the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs in the most exhaustive investigation of the status of POWs and MIAs ever conducted. In Feberuary of 1994, President Bill Clinton lifted the trade embargo on Vietnam. 17 months later, in July of 1995, he announced the normalization of political relations with Vietnam. In July of 2000, the United States and Vietnam concluded a comprehensive Bilateral Trade Agreement, allowing the United States to provide, for the first time, nondiscriminatory treatment to Vietnam's products. And just last month, the United States and Vietnam signed another trade agreement, paving the way for Vietnam's accession to the World Trade Organization. Today, we continue the legacy of reconciliation. This morning, Senator Smith and I--along with Senators McCain, Kerry, Hagel, Lugar, Murkowski, and Carper--introduced a bill to grant Vietnam Permanent Normal Trade Relations status, or PNTR. I congratulate Representatives Ramstad and Thompson for introducing the House version of this bill. This is the final step on the road to normalization. With this bill, we will complete the process begun 15 years ago. Today, we open a new book to the future. With 83 million people and a median age just over 25 years old, Vietnam is one of the most important emerging markets in Asia. Our trade with Vietnam has grown to 30 times what it was in 1994. With PNTR, we begin the story of full engagement between the United States and Vietnam. It is a story of economic cooperation and cultural understanding. It is a story where trade and markets overshadow memories of guns and war. I look forward to working with my Senate and House colleagues, the administration, and all interested parties to pass this historic bill by the August recess. I ask that a copy of the text of the bill be printed into the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, I introduce with Senator Gordon Smith a bill to grant Vietnam permanent normal trade relations status. Thirty-one years ago, the lights went out on the relationship between the United States and Vietnam. Diplomatic relations were broken off, and trade ceased. The story between our two countries became one of refugees, prisoners of war, and soldiers missing in action. Hostility and mistrust prevailed. Normalization was a dream of the visionary or the fool. In 1991--16 years after the last helicopters took off from the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon--flickers of reconciliation emerged out of the darkness. In April of that year, President George H.W. Bush presented the Vietnamese government with a roadmap for normalization. That started a process of healing that lasted through successive Republican and Democratic administrations and was supported by courageous bipartisan action in the Congress: Between 1991 and 1993, veterans Senator John Kerry, Senator McCain, and former Senator Bob Smith led the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs in the most exhaustive investigation of the status of POWs and MIAs ever conducted. In Feberuary of 1994, President Bill Clinton lifted the trade embargo on Vietnam. 17 months later, in July of 1995, he announced the normalization of political relations with Vietnam. In July of 2000, the United States and Vietnam concluded a comprehensive Bilateral Trade Agreement, allowing the United States to provide, for the first time, nondiscriminatory treatment to Vietnam's products. And just last month, the United States and Vietnam signed another trade agreement, paving the way for Vietnam's accession to the World Trade Organization. Today, we continue the legacy of reconciliation. This morning, Senator Smith and I--along with Senators McCain, Kerry, Hagel, Lugar, Murkowski, and Carper--introduced a bill to grant Vietnam Permanent Normal Trade Relations status, or PNTR. I congratulate Representatives Ramstad and Thompson for introducing the House version of this bill. This is the final step on the road to normalization. With this bill, we will complete the process begun 15 years ago. Today, we open a new book to the future. With 83 million people and a median age just over 25 years old, Vietnam is one of the most important emerging markets in Asia. Our trade with Vietnam has grown to 30 times what it was in 1994. With PNTR, we begin the story of full engagement between the United States and Vietnam. It is a story of economic cooperation and cultural understanding. It is a story where trade and markets overshadow memories of guns and war. I look forward to working with my Senate and House colleagues, the administration, and all interested parties to pass this historic bill by the August recess. I ask that a copy of the text of the bill be printed into the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Book of Proverbs says: ``The silver- haired head is a crown of glory.'' Today, the crown of glory rests upon the silver-haired head of our dear friend and colleague, Robert C. Byrd. For yesterday, he became the longest-serving Senator in the history of the Senate. Senator Byrd has served in the Senate since January 3, 1959. That is longer than there have been 50 States in the Union. That was before Charles de Gaulle was President of France. That was before NASA had astronauts. Senator Byrd has served as Senator during the terms of 10 Presidents, 9 majority leaders, and 8 Speakers of the House of Representatives. For 12 years, Senator Byrd served as the leader of Senate Democrats. He served as majority leader, minority leader, and then majority leader again. Senator Byrd has served as the Senate's historian, elder statesman, and conscience. Senator Byrd has zealously defended the power of the purse. Senator Byrd has zealously defended the Senate. And Senator Byrd has zealously defended the Constitution of the United States. But notwithstanding his having held the high rank of Senator for longer than any human being, Senator Byrd has never forgotten whence he came. Senator Robert C. Byrd grew up in the bituminous coalfields of West Virginia, graduated from high school class in the depths of the Great Depression, and worked pumping gas, selling produce, cutting meat, and welding ships. Even though Senator Byrd reached the zenith of power, Senator Byrd has always remained a man of the people. Senator Robert C. Byrd is an assiduous pursuer of knowledge, a tenacious friend, and a man of deep, abiding faith. Now Senator Byrd surpasses in length of service the likes of Strom Thurmond, Carl Hayden, John Stennis, Russell Long, and Richard Russell. And now Senator Byrd stands in quality of service with the likes of Daniel Webster, John Calhoun, Henry Clay, Robert La Follette, and Robert Wagner. I thank almighty God that for more than 47 years, Americans have been able to call him ``Senator.'' I thank God that for more than 27 of those years, I have been blessed to serve here with him. And I thank God that for more than 27 years, I have been blessed to call him ``friend.''

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I strongly support the nomination of Susan Schwab to be our next U.S. Trade Representative. I have known and worked with Ambassador Schwab for many years. She has had a stellar career as a trade negotiator, a senior congressional staffer, a businesswoman, and a university administrator and professor. I recently read a piece about Ambassador Schwab in the Washington Post. That article described her as ``a hard-nosed pragmatist, well versed in arcane trade economics, and a dazzling strategist and negotiator.'' She was described as excelling as ``a strategic thinker and consensus builder . . . able to quickly synthesize the thinking of Congress, the administration and special-interest groups.'' That Washington Post article is 19 years old. It is from July 1987. By that point, Ambassador Schwab had already honed her reputation in the international trade community. She had already negotiated tricky agriculture agreements in the Tokyo Round. She had already helped draft provisions of U.S. trade law--like Super 301--that became a fixture of U.S. trade policy for the next decade. She had already attracted both fear and admiration among many of our most recalcitrant trading partners. Nineteen years later, Ambassador Schwab continues to demonstrate her skill as a seasoned trade negotiator. In her tenure as Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, she has settled one of the most difficult and complicated trade issues--our dispute with Canada over subsidized imports of softwood lumber. She has worked tirelessly with our trading partners on trade agreements, and she has worked to obtain consensus among the 149 members of the World Trade Organization in the ongoing Doha Round negotiations. Ambassador Schwab will need all of her skills to carry out the job as U.S. Trade Representative. We have entered one of the most difficult periods in trade policy that I can remember--both with our trading partners and domestically. At the top of Ambassador Schwab's agenda will be shoring up the Doha Round. Unless something changes soon, these talks are at serious risk of collapse. Our trading partners continue to believe that America alone must make the concessions necessary for these talks to conclude. They forget that negotiations are two-way. They are give and take. As I have told Ambassador Schwab, I will not be in a position to support any result out of the Doha Round unless several results are achieved: No. 1, the EU must commit to serious and meaningful reductions in agriculture tariffs; No. 2, Brazil, India, and developing world countries must commit to serious and meaningful reductions in industrial tariffs; and No. 3, our key trading partners must agree to open further their services markets. Ambassador Schwab will also face serious challenges in our bilateral trade and economic relationship with China. China often makes promises--in the WTO and bilaterally--that it does not always keep. For instance, in April, China promised to lift its ban on U.S. beef. But China still has not done so, and it appears to be in no hurry. In the coming months, I hope to work with Ambassador Schwab in creating a more sustained, structured, and comprehensive dialogue with China that allows the United States to hold China's feet to the fire on the promises that it makes. And we also need a better framework to seek out ways to cooperate more effectively on issues of mutual economic interest. Ambassador Schwab will also be responsible for negotiating the most challenging free-trade agreements to date. Agreements with Korea and Malaysia--our 7th and 10th largest trading partners respectively--hold great promise. But each presents unique and difficult issues that we must address in order to build political support for these agreements at home. That will be Ambassador Schwab's greatest challenge--building political support for trade at home. It is no secret that support for trade has evaporated. Since Congress granted this administration trade promotion authority in 2002, Members have been asked to take a series of difficult votes on trade agreements with small countries of limited commercial value. Since that time, the concerns Members of Congress have expressed about the administration's trade strategy have fallen on deaf ears, and since that time, support for trade among usually protrade constituents has waned considerably. As a result, when trade promotion authority expires next year, I do not think Congress will renew it without major changes. I do not anticipate new fast-track authority until Congress, the administration, and all relevant stakeholders are willing to engage in a serious discussion. They need to answer the tough questions that remain unaddressed: questions relating to trade adjustment assistance and other programs to help those who may be hurt by trade, questions about the role of labor in our trade agreements, and questions relating to the relationship between trade and a competitive U.S. economy. These are hard issues, and Ambassador Schwab will have to face them head-on. But I have full confidence that Ambassador Schwab has the skills, experience, and the guts to tackle them. Indeed, she spent most of the 1980s grappling with very similar issues when she worked for Senator Danforth in both the majority and the minority. Nineteen years ago, the Washington Post described Susan Schwab as a ``strategic thinker'' and a ``consensus builder.'' We need these skills at the U.S. Trade Representative, now more than ever. I look forward to working closely with Ambassador Schwab and urge my Colleagues to vote to confirm her today.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following fellows, law clerks, and interns of the staff of the Finance Committee be allowed on the Senate floor for the duration of the debate on the estate tax: Tiffany Smith, Laura Kellams, Tom Louthan, Christal Edwards, Joseph Adams, and Justin Kraske.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, the Book of Proverbs says: A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children. Tomorrow, the Senate will vote on whether the Government should have a part in that transaction. Tomorrow, the Senate will vote on whether to move to the consideration of a repeal of the estate tax. During a particularly tumultuous time in American history, President Ford said: Truth is the glue that holds government together. Compromise is the oil that makes government go. We are not confronted with the same level of rancor today as when President Ford said that. But both of these institutional virtues-- truth and compromise--are as essential today as they were then. To achieve true estate tax relief for our constituents, we will need a heavy dose of each. The estate tax is a difficult issue. Members on both sides of the debate have strong feelings. Back home, many of us meet with ranchers, farmers, family businesses, and others who feel passionately about the estate tax. Some believe that it is an unfair tax. Others believe that it is an important source of revenue for government programs. Personally, I believe that the estate tax has caused significant hardship for families in my home state of Montana. I often hear from ranchers and farmers who own land that has become very valuable. Often, they have little cash in their pockets to pay the estate tax when passing their land on to their children. In Montana, like many other places in the West, people are committed to their land. They are committed to their way of life. Many of my constituents want to pass their ranch or farm on to their children. They do not want it divided up. They do not want it spoiled by developers. Their children want to stay on the land. They want to keep the lifestyle that is so important to them. They love the land. They are stewards of the proud western heritage of ranching and farming. They take their attachment to the land very seriously. And they do not take kindly to the government interfering with their link to the land. This is why I support repeal of the estate tax. From my view, from Montana's view, a tax that forces ranchers to break up their land is a bad tax. This is my strongly held belief. But I realize that some of my colleagues believe just as strongly that inheritances over a certain value should be subject to tax. I understand that anything is possible. But it appears unlikely that we are going to change many Senators' minds on this issue. Each side is pretty well dug in. As a consequence, we are short of the votes required to repeal the estate tax outright. That is why I have been working together with Republicans and Democrats to achieve a compromise on the estate tax. Senator Kyl, in particular has made an important effort to reach a compromise. I commend him. My goal is to pass a repeal of the estate tax. But if we are not able to reach that goal, at the very least we should reach a resolution that will protect as many Montanans as possible from the estate tax. I think that we can accomplish that. But we will need time. It will take real effort. It will take concessions. I am committed to that work. I have met with many Senators from both parties on this issue. Our staffs have been meeting for months. We have been working to address the details, if we reach an agreement. After meeting with Republicans and Democrats on the estate tax, we have considered several proposals that will both increase the exemption for estates subject to the tax, and lower the rates of taxation. These proposals will not eliminate the estate tax altogether. But they will--at the very least--eliminate the tax for 99.7 percent of Montanans and Americans alike. Only 3 tenths of 1 percent of Americans would have to worry about the tax again. That is a very small number. Only 31 out of nearly 9,000 estates in Montana would be subject to an estate tax in 2006 under the proposals we are discussing. We are discussing proposals that amount to roughly half of the cost of full repeal. That is the ultimate consensus position. That is the middle. I think that Senator Kyl and I have made good progress. But I am willing to listen to other ideas that Members have. We should keep this process going. We should continue the work of negotiation. We have not finished our work on a compromise. But even so, the majority leader has decided to hold a vote on the estate tax. Let's be honest. Tomorrow's vote is thus not a constructive step to actual reform. It is a political exercise. It is a reward to the noisy Washington interest groups that pray on resentment and discord. Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty, on occasion, of forcing votes just to score political points. But that is not a productive way to run the Senate. So what will we be left with tomorrow at the end of this vote? Perhaps more distrust of one side from the other. But we will not have accomplished the goal that many of us in this body seek: true estate tax relief for our constituents. As our former Majority leader George Mitchell used to say said: ``Do you want to make a statement, or do you want to make law?'' I am committed to making law. I will work together with Republicans and Democrats alike. I will work with anyone in this body to reach a consensus on the estate tax that gives real estate tax relief to Montana families, and importantly, has the votes to pass. But such a compromise will take time. My hope is that we can return to negotiations after this vote. I hope that then we can bring to those negotiations a renewed sense of purpose and drive to accomplish a true compromise--consistent with the best traditions of this body. We owe this spirit of cooperation to the Senate as an institution. More importantly, we owe it to the ranchers and farmers and families in Montana and across America who expect us to work together for a compromise on the estate tax that will provide real relief--not political statements. Madam President, let us not just make statements. Let us negotiate. And let us make the law that will end this tax once and for all. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, thank you, and I thank my good friend from West Virginia. I know what he is going to speak on. The person he is going to speak about was a great person, a person I very much admired, as I admire the Senator from West Virginia--a wonderful relationship, wonderful, wonderful. It is a model for so many of us in the Senate and the country. I thank my very good friend.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. She is.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I join my colleagues in mourning the passing of a great man, an extraordinary statesman, and a good friend: Senator Lloyd Bentsen. Lloyd Bentsen was the noblest of Americans. Courtly, thoughtful, and soft-spoken, Senator Bentsen embodied the finest traditions of America. Lloyd Bentsen and I shared a perspective. It was based on the states that we came from. I used to tease Senator Bentsen that Montana is what Texas would be like, if all the things that Texans say about Texas were true. We shared an outlook born in the wide open spaces of our great Land. We came from states that are larger than counties in Europe. You can go great distances in Montana or Texas without seeing another soul. And with that comes a view that values our fellow man. We also shared a view of this Senate. We could not have been more compatible. We shared a goal, always to accomplish something good on behalf of the American people. We also shared a hallway on the 7th floor of the Hart Senate office building. I had good fortune to get an office next door to Senator Bentsen's. Our two teams were very closely woven together. Very often I would wonder where in the world my staff was. They would be down the hall talking to Bentsen's staff because they we are so compatible and had such good ideas. My staff would often go to his for sage advice, as I would go to him. We would often walk over together for votes. Senator Bentsen was a role model. He was smart, tough, and disciplined. He was always focused. He always maintained his temper. And he always kept his integrity. He was a Senators' Senator. Lloyd Bentsen was a singular person. He was reserved, even-tempered, and fair. He reserved judgment, learned the facts, and listened to all points of view. And then he would take a strong position. And more often than not, that position would prevail. Lloyd Bentsen had the strongest commitment to duty. Even after 14 hours of floor work, he would walk into a room for all-night budget negotiations. He would not complain. He would say: ``This is what I signed up for.''. Lloyd Bentsen contributed greatly to this Country. He served bravely in the Air Force. He served 6 years in the House of Representatives. He served 22 years in this Senate. He served 6 years as chairman of the Finance Committee. And he served 2 years as Secretary of the Treasury. Lloyd Bentsen stood for responsibility, probity, and civility. He was a champion of sound tax policy. He fought for and achieved some of the most significant deficit reduction in our Nation's history. He played key roles in the 1990 budget summit and President Clinton's 1993 deficit reduction legislation. And Senator Bentsen was a leader in international trade. We worked closely together for more than a decade, early on, to develop a Democratic position that supported free trade. We did so with an aggressive policy that broke down international trade barriers to American products. We worked closely on a series of initiatives, for at least a decade. Chairman Bentsen skillfully and successfully worked to win passage of the 1988 Trade and Competitiveness Act. He guided the United States- Canada Free Trade Agreement through the Senate. And in Texas, he is known as the father of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Senator Bentsen ran against the first President Bush twice. Bentsen ran against and beat Bush in the election for Senator from Texas, in 1970. And later, Senator Bentsen ran with Governor Dukakis on the 1988 Presidential ticket. But after that election, Chairman Bentsen was still for giving President Bush authority to negotiate trade agreements. He simply thought that it was the right thing for the country. Senator Bentsen embodied the finest characteristics of public service. Some might say that he embodied a different era of the United States Senate. If that is so, then we are the poorer for having lost it. We are certainly the poorer for having lost him. Our hearts go out to B.A., and the entire Bentsen family, on their great loss. Lloyd Bentsen was always very sweet and deferential to B.A. He often said the B.A. stood for ``best asset.'' Lloyd and B.A. Bentsen were married for 63 years. Very often I would see the two of them together. It reminds me of the relationship of Senator and Mrs. Byrd. They were very close; teasing each other. It was a wonderful relationship to behold. I have many memories of Lloyd and B.A. being together, whether flying on a plane to South America or here in the Senate, wherever. My heart goes out to you B.A. and to your family. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow wrote: Were a star quenched on high, For ages would its light, Still travelling downward from the sky, Shine on our mortal sight. So when a great man dies, For years beyond our ken, The light he leaves behind him lies Upon the paths of men. Senator Lloyd Bentsen was a great man. And for years beyond our ken, the light that Lloyd Bentsen leaves behind will lie upon the paths of men, upon the paths of the United States, and upon the paths of this Senate. I very much thank my friend from West Virginia.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Senate for accepting my amendment to the Immigration Reform Bill which addresses an area that needs more attention--the northern border of the United States. We have 5,526 miles of border between the United States and Canada. This is over double the size of our southern border. Along Montana's 560-mile portion of the border we have remote terrain which is mountainous and difficult to patrol. My 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 the northern border. In his immigration speech last week, President Bush emphasized that in addition to personnel and training we must also employ the latest technologies. The Border Patrol has already conducted successful tests using UAVs along the southwestern border in Arizona. This was done for surveillance and detection of individuals attempting to enter the U.S. illegally. My amendment requires that some of the UAVs already in the bill be used to run a pilot program on the northern border similar to the program which was conducted on the southern border. We don't want to compete with our friends along the U.S. border with Mexico, but I want to make it clear that the northern border also needs increased attention. As you can imagine, as the southern border of the U.S. is tightened, our northern border--which used to be America's back door--is quickly becoming the front door. Customs and Border Patrol reports that their number one concern on the southern border is illegal immigration. What is their number one concern on the northern border? Terrorism. We are all aware that some of the 9/11 highjackers made their way into this country through Canada. In 1999 the ``Millennium Bomber'', Ahmed Ressam, was apprehended on the northern border with a trunk full of explosives. His plan was to blow up Los Angeles International Airport. Now border gangs are going international and admitting having ties to Al-Qaeda and smuggling Al-Qaeda members into the United States. In Montana markings from these gangs have been found in the corrections system--within the walls of our jails and detention facilities. Surveillance of our ports is being conducted from the Canadian side of the border. It appears that our procedures for checking out vehicles both leaving and entering the United States 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 along the border. Yet the bill that has been before us has many provisions which are stacked against the security of the northern border. For example, one provision in this bill provides border States with additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement field agents to help with necessary background checks. However, it stipulates that these allocations are not available to States with populations under two million. This makes northern border States Montana, North Dakota, Idaho, Alaska, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine ineligible for assistance. Now the President has proposed sending our National Guard troops to the southern border. We rely greatly on our National Guard and at a time they are already stretched too thin, it is dangerous for us to lose that resource from our States. More importantly, this is being done at a time when we currently have border patrol agents being detailed from the northern border to the southern border. The ability of our Border Patrol to successfully carry out their daily duties is of critical importance 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 the home front safe.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the resolution I am submitting aims to ensure that charities under the control of Senators can be viewed in the most ethical terms. Mahatma Gandhi once said: ``Men say that I am a saint losing myself in politics. The fact is that I am a politician trying my hardest to be a saint.'' That sums up the purpose of my resolution. We in the Senate run for office to do good. We try to make the country better. We try to serve. We strive to do the right thing. As much as we try, however, even innocent gestures can be perceived as self-serving, or at worst, unethical. Some of us have started charities that we believe help to serve our country and important public needs. Senators may innocently employ staff who they trust at the charity. Senators may use lawyers who they are familiar with to ensure that requirements are met. Senators may accept contributions from corporations because the funds will be spent on a worthy cause. The activities that I have listed may betray nothing more than an innocent effort to carry out charitable works. But the public has a right to be skeptical. The public has a right to know what companies-- that may or may not have business before the Senate--are donating to charities controlled by Senators. My resolution would not ban Senators from starting charities. But it would address the healthy skepticism that the public has expressed about the rules governing charities controlled by Members of Congress. As the Washington Post noted in an editorial on Tuesday, March 7 ``[W]hen lawmakers have a personal interest in the charity, the opportunities for abuse are greatly magnified.'' Because of the potential for abuse, and because of the perception of abuse, I believe that rules governing charities controlled by Senators should be ``greatly magnified.'' I am glad that the bill reported by the Homeland Security Committee takes a step to provide more disclosure in this area. The Homeland Security Committee bill would require disclosure of gifts by lobbyists to charities controlled by Members of Congress. This is a good first step, but I think we can do better. My resolution would do the following: First, it would require that any gift over $200 to a charity substantially influenced by a Senator be disclosed if the Senator or their senior staff are aware of the gift. While disclosing gifts from lobbyists is important, it is equally imperative that gifts from corporations and individuals are also disclosed. Second, my resolution prohibits Senators from using a charity they substantially influence for what can be perceived as their personal gain. How does the resolution do this? Under Senate Rule XXXVII, concerning conflicts of interest, a Senator would be barred from deriving personal gain from a charity that they substantially influence. The resolution defines personal gain in the following way: (1) When a Senator or their family member is employed by the charity in a paid capacity (2) When a member of the Senator's staff is employed by the charity in a paid capacity (3) When an individual or firm that receives income from the Senator's political action committee serves in a paid capacity to the charity (4) When the charity pays for travel or lodging costs by the Senator on a trip where the Senator also engages in political fund raising (5) And, finally, when another charity receives payment from the Senator's charity to pay for the Senator's travel and lodging. In vetting this proposal, I have heard concerns that prohibition on a Senator's family serving in a paid capacity of a charity they substantially influence may be too broad. The example of my friend Senator Elizabeth Dole is raised. When her husband, Senator Bob Dole served as our distinguished majority leader, Senator Elizabeth Dole served as the president of the American Red Cross. The purpose of my resolution is not to clamp down on this from occurring. That is why my resolution would allow Senators to seek a waiver from the Senate Ethics Committee when a family member has substantial influence over a charity, and the family member's influence over the charity clearly does not provide any benefit to the Senator. I know that some Senators may argue that more rules do not ensure ethical conduct. That is true. Every Senator is responsible for behaving ethically. My resolution will not automatically make unethical arrangements ethical. Nor should the resolution be viewed as a statement on the ethical conduct of members that currently maintain and control charities. As Ecclesiastes chapter 3, verse 17 says, ``God shall judge the righteous and the wicked.'' My resolution simply aims to do better--to give the public confidence that when a Senator starts a charitable organization it is for charitable purposes. It is to fulfill the commandment expressed in Deuteronomy that ``Every man shall give as he is able. `` My resolution has been endorsed by the watchdog groups Public Citizen and the National Committee on Responsive Philanthropy. I urge the Senate to support my resolution.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on rollcall No. 141, I voted nay. It was my intention to vote yea. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, to introduce a bill making the position of executive director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, or the PBGC, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. Quite frankly, I was surprised to find out that this important position is not subject to Senate approval. The Secretary of Labor, the Chairman of the PBGC, simply appoints the executive director. This is too important a position not to be subject to Senate oversight. Jurisdiction over the PBGC rests with both the Committee on Finance and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, the HELP Committee. To recognize this, our bill would require both committees to approve the director. The Finance Committee, the HELP Committee, and indeed the entire Senate have spent considerable time over the last few years fighting to protect the pensions of millions of workers. And the deficit of the PBGC--now over $23 billion--has been growing. We now have a bill in conference that I hope will be brought back before the Senate soon. And I hope that the simple provision that I am introducing today can be added to that legislation. It is the perfect time to make the position subject to Senate approval. The current executive director is leaving the PBGC at the end of May. And his replacement should be subject to Senate confirmation. The PBGC is a government corporation that was created when ERISA was enacted in 1974. It is established within the Department of Labor. Labor controls PBGC for many administrative matters. But PBGC has its own budget, which goes through the PBGC Board, and PBGC's attorneys litigate their own cases. PBGC is controlled by a 3-person Board made up of the Secretary of Labor, as the Chairman of the PBGC, and the Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce. PBGC is run on a day-to-day basis by an executive director. This position is not mentioned in ERISA but is a creation of the PBGC by- laws adopted by the board. The Secretary of Labor appoints the executive director, who is a political appointee. Executive directors have stayed on average a couple of years. The PBGC insures the pensions of 40 million workers and retirees in about 30,000 plans. These plans have trillions of dollars in assets. PBGC itself has more than $40 billion in assets, more than $63 billion in liabilities, and a $23 billion deficit. Even with the rush to terminate or freeze current plans, most of the Nation's biggest companies still maintain defined benefit plans. What happens with defined benefit plans has a big effect on America's competitiveness and affects the retirement security of America's workers and retirees. Making the executive director's position an advice and consent position would give the Senate say in what type of person serves in this position so that PBGC does not become another FEMA. It would show the importance that Congress attaches to the role of the PBGC for workers, retirees and employers. It would raise the attraction of the PBGC director position. I ask my colleagues to support making the PBGC executive director position subject to Senate approval. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the State Health Insurance Assistance Program. I filed amendment No. 2917 to increase resources for this important initiative. The State Health Insurance Assistance program, known as SHIP, provides one-on-one counseling and assistance to people with Medicare and their families. Congress created the program in 1990 so that Medicare beneficiaries could obtain free, unbiased and personal assistance with their health benefits. Today, SHIPs operate in all 50 States, Washington, DC, and the territories. Over the last 2 years, SHIPs have had the formidable task of helping Americans understand the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. In all States, SHIPs enlisted the help of thousands of volunteers--over 11,000 nationally--for a massive public outreach campaign. SHIP counselors and volunteers--like Bobbie Roberts and Sue Bailey in Billings, MT.--conducted public education programs at senior centers, hospitals, assisted-living facilities, libraries, and other public venues. They answered questions via telephone and in face-to-face sessions. And they spent countless hours helping Medicare beneficiaries choose and enroll in a drug plan that best meets their needs. These folks deserve our thanks. They are truly unsung heroes who have helped make the drug benefit a reality for millions of people with Medicare. And they did all this on a shoe-string budget. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, operates the Medicare Program. As such, CMS is responsible for providing funding to the SHIP. But last year, in the midst of the largest Medicare expansion ever, CMS provided SHIPs just $32 million to carry out their important work. Thirty-two million dollars sounds like a lot of money. But when you think about the workload the SHIPs faced, it is not much. In fact, that $32 million translates to only 70 cents per Medicare beneficiary. A five-county region in Montana about the size of Delaware received about $8,500 in SHIP funds for the entire year. That is not enough. I believe that the lack of sufficient resources for SHIPs goes a long way toward explaining why enrollment in the drug program continues to lag. I might also note that the $32 million CMS provided to SHIPs pales in comparison to the roughly $300 million CMS spent promoting the new drug benefit. That $300 million went to programs like the toll-free 1-800 Medicare hotline. Last week the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, GAO, Congress's investigative arm--found major flaws with the Medicare hotline. GAO found that the Medicare hotline failed to give seniors correct information on one key question--which plan offered the lowest costs for individuals taking a given set of drugs--almost 60 percent of the time. And what about some of the other funding devoted to promoting the drug benefit? CMS spent some of the funds on a bus tour. In 2003 CMS spent $600,000 to promote Medicare with a blimp at football games. And other funding went to Ketchum Communications, which produced simulated news reports on the drug program. In 2004, the GAO found that these videos violated the government ban on publicity and propaganda. We can do better. We can promote the drug benefit in more cost- effective ways by appropriately funding SHIPs. Recent findings from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission underscore this assertion. A recent study by MedPAC suggests that only 1 in 5 people used the Medicare hotline and only 1 in 10 used the Medicare Web site to make decisions about their Medicare drug coverage. And even though this year's enrollment deadline is almost upon us, the hard work is not over. Enrollment in the Medicare drug benefit is still too low in many States. In Montana, 40 percent of people with Medicare still don't have any form of drug coverage. A study released yesterday by Families USA estimates that most people who haven't signed up have low income and would qualify for the extra help that Congress included in the drug benefit. We need to increase SHIP funding to help meet challenges that lie ahead. My amendment would provide $25 million for States to expand their SHIP activities. Funds also would be available for innovative programs in States where Medicare drug coverage is low. And funds would be available to CMS to promote the existence and services of SHIPs. As the new program evolves, many people with Medicare and their families will have even greater need for a reliable source of impartial advice. And more needs to be done to help low-income people enroll. Many of us voted for the drug benefit because we believed it would help people who need help the most. Let's make that happen in every community in every State. Let's devote resources to a program that works. Let's help thousands of volunteers help our seniors. Let's increase vital resources for the State Health Insurance Assistance Program.