Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggested to the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, and he agreed, that it would be appropriate and, in fact, it would be a good idea, to pass legislation today which would allow Americans to give a full deduction that is available under current law to the tsunami relief effort in 2004, if they wish. Even though we are clearly now in 2005, the idea is and the legislation would provide that, for Americans who want to give to the tsunami relief effort and take that contribution on their 2004 tax returns, they may do so. I am very encouraged the House took up that bill a few minutes ago. It is unclear as to when that will actually pass, but it is my understanding it will pass today. I have spoken to a good number of Senators about this legislation, and I have with me a long list of cosponsors of this legislation. I think it would be good for us to do this right away. I say quickly because the IRS has informed me that the sooner we pass this, the better. That is, the sooner we pass the legislation, the more easily they can work with American taxpayers who want to take this deduction--it is a cash deduction--in 2004. It is framed as a cash deduction because that is what the relief agencies want. They want cash. First, cash can be transmitted much more quickly than in-kind contributions, as much as food and clothes is important. They can transmit the cash contribution with the speed of light, frankly. Second, with cash it can be disbursed and sent to the area where it is needed the most. Maybe food is needed, maybe medical supplies are needed in one area more than another, maybe clothing or tents or whatnot is needed. With the cash available, the relief agencies can decide what is the best use. This is also the approach taken by our President when he nominated and encouraged former President Bush and former President Clinton to go nationwide to encourage Americans to contribute to the relief effort. They, too, suggest cash contributions are best. They are much more efficient. It is what makes the most sense as being the most helpful to the people in that part of the world who need it the most. I have a special feeling, almost reverence, for Southeast Asia, because I have traveled in that part of the world many times. The Southeast Asia ambassadors have been guests of mine in my home State of Montana just recently, this past year. I visited Southeast Asia quite recently. My heart, all of our hearts, clearly, go out to the victims and their families. Words cannot describe the extent and depth of this tragedy, and I am not going to make the effort to do so. But certainly when we see the photographs and we read the reports and hear people such as Secretary Colin Powell comment on what they have seen and what has happened or has not happened over there, it tugs very deeply at the hearts of all of us. That part of the world has our deepest prayers and our fondest hopes that we will do all we can to help out. That is happening. The American public, the American people are the most generous people in the world. I don't know what it is, there is something extra special about the American spirit. We dig down to help people who need help. We are there. I think it is probably because we are a society that is much more open than most others. We are also a country with many immigrants. We feel for the goings on in other countries in the world. We are a young country by comparison. I wouldn't say that makes us naive, but it certainly enables us to have much more hope about the future because we still are young. We are very hopeful. Many countries that are much older do not have quite the same hope, it seems. There is maybe a little cynicism--they have seen it all, or maybe not, but we are a country that is open and we want to help. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a resolution which would accelerate the income benefits for charitable cash contributions for the relief of victims in the Indian Ocean tsunami. Also, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of all the cosponsors of this Senate joint resolution. I am not going to read all the names. It is a long list.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want our colleagues to know that Senator Grassley and I were joined in the effort to provide tsunami relief assistance by dozens of our Colleagues. I want to acknowledge them by asking for unanimous consent that the text of the Senate Joint Resolution and the full list of cosponsors be printed in the Record. Senator Akaka of Hawaii, Senator Alexander of Tennessee, Senator Biden of Delaware, Senator Bunning of Kentucky, Senator Byrd of West Virginia, Senator Cantwell of Washington, Senator Clinton of New York, Senator Corzine of New Jersey, Senator Dayton of Minnesota, Senator Durbin of Illinois, Senator Feingold of Wisconsin, Senator Feinstein of California, Senator Hagel of Nebraska, Senator Harkin of Iowa, Senator Hatch of Utah, Senator Inouye of Hawaii, Senator Jeffords of Vermont, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, Senator Kohl of Wisconsin, Senator Landrieu of Louisiana. Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey, Senator Leahy of Vermont, Senator Levin of Michigan, Senator McCain of Arizona, Senator Mikulski of Maryland, Senator Murray of Washington, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, Senator Nelson of Florida, Senator Obama of Illinois, Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia, Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania, Senator Schumer of New York, Senator Smith of Oregon, Senator Wyden of Oregon, Senator Stabenow of Michigan, Senator Dorgan of North Dakota, Senator Dodd of Connecticut. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 rise today to join my colleagues in expressing sympathies to the family of Representative Bob Matsui, who passed away over the weekend. I was shocked and saddened to hear the news about our old friend. While few Montanans may know Bob Matsui, he did embody one trait Montanans are familiar with. He was always willing to reach out to those across the aisle to get the job done. He and I shared this work philosophy on free trade especially. He was a tireless advocate in the Congress for America's trade agenda and was essential to the enactment of many historic international agreements. We will surely miss his leadership on critical issues this next Congress, such as Social Security, one issue where the American people expect and deserve a healthy, vigorous, and open debate. And for that type of debate, you could certainly count on Bob Matsui to deliver. Despite starting his life as a child unjustly interned by his own Government during World War II, Bob later rose to serve in that very Government at its highest echelons, as a Member of Congress. How proud his family must have been to see this dynamic man elected to public office, where he championed legislation to apologize for the internment of Japanese American families such as his. Overcoming obstacles and injustices to rise to a level of public admiration, respect, and trust may sound like a Hollywood story; to Bob, though, it was his life story. Wanda and I send our prayers and sympathies to his family; his wife Doris, son Brian, daughter-in-law Amy, and granddaughter Anna. He will be greatly missed by us all.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I rise to share a few remarks involving the overwhelming disaster that has hit Southeast Asia. I hope the distinguished deputy leader would heed my remarks because I very much hope we can get this legislation passed this year--not only this year, but passed today--which gives a charitable tax deduction, cash deduction to Americans on their tax returns for 2004 who give a charitable contribution to the tsunami disaster. Clearly that has to be done immediately. Otherwise it will not have any real effect. It affects taxpayers who wish to give today but take the deduction on their 2004 tax returns, or 2005. This gives an opportunity to take the deduction on the 2004 returns. It is almost impossible to talk about the tsunami disaster. Words do not begin to describe the extent of the disaster. We all feel it when we watch television and see the photographs in the newspapers. We hear reports from those who have been there; Secretary Powell, for example. It is so overwhelming. It is so large scale. One hundred fifty thousand people perished. Just imagine. September 11 was a disaster almost beyond belief, and that was 3,000 deaths. We are talking now about 150,000 people who just had no defense. Families were destroyed. In many cases there is very little hope because so many relatives are gone. Roads are gone. Houses are gone. Up to 2 million people who are displaced are homeless. It is staggering. Some suggest this might be the worst disaster in modern history. It could well be. But whether it is the worst or second worst is not the point. The point is, it is a huge personal disaster, personal tragedy for so many people over such a large scale. I am encouraged and very thankful so many people around the world have poured their hearts out to the victims. Many have flown over to volunteer help. Many have sent contributions, sometimes in-kind contributions, sometimes cash. Last night, I was watching a television program to raise money for the tsunami victims, and you could see it happen over a 45-minute period. First it went to $1 million, and then it went up to $6 million that had been pledged within that 45 minutes. That is wonderful. I think a lot of Americans want to give. Clearly, some Americans are strapped, but they still want to give. It is the American spirit. It is who we are as Americans. I suggest, in cosponsoring a bill with the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, that we pass legislation today which gives Americans the opportunity to take the full deduction that is currently available for deductions in 2005--after all, this is January--that Americans can take that deduction today on their 2004 tax returns. I think many Americans would like to do that. It would be an additional incentive, an additional encouragement for Americans to contribute to the tsunami disaster. It is very simple legislation but legislation that will be very helpful, and it must pass right away. Clearly, it will not work if it is passed much later. It will cause a lot of administrative problems for the IRS. After all, April 15 is the deadline for 2004 tax returns. If we could pass this legislation today, the IRS has told us it can very easily accommodate and deal with the changes that are necessary to allow Americans to take those deductions on their 2004 tax returns for the contributions they make now. I very much hope the minor questions people have about this legislation are resolved very quickly because there is no reason not to pass this legislation. It will not create a huge precedential problem. It is not going to be terribly costly. But it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing for Americans to do, to pass legislation to make it a little easier for Americans to contribute to the victims of the tsunami disaster. I very much hope we can get it passed. I am going to stay on the floor today as long as it takes to get it passed. There is no conceivable reason it should not pass. I am going to stay here until we do get it passed because it is the right thing to do. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Last week the Senate lost one of its most dedicated public servants. Stan Kimmitt was deeply devoted to this great body and to his beloved country. He never forgot his humble beginnings and strong Montana roots. Stan devoted his life to public service, always defending democracy and decency whether it was on the dangerous battlefields of War World II Europe or in the Halls of the U.S. Capitol, he always held true to his core values. Born James Stanley Kimmitt on April 5, 1918, to wheat farmers in Lewistown, MT, the 1920s drought forced the family to move to Great Falls where he was raised. After graduating from the University of Montana in Missoula in 1940, Stan immediately enlisted to serve his country in World War II. He fought as a tireless combat commander often volunteering to lead the most dangerous missions. Stan was eventually part of the first U.S. division to occupy Berlin and he was honored for his service by receiving the Silver and Bronze Stars. Stan would later heroically fight in the Korean war and his accomplishments were recognized when he was inducted into the Field Artillery Officer Candidate School Hall of Fame. Stan's exemplary military career served as a great building block for what lay ahead for his career. When he returned to the States, Stan sought other ways to serve his country. One presented itself when Mike Mansfield was elected to the U.S. Senate from Montana. As Senator Mansfield's chief of staff, Stan was able to honor his roots and work on the issues important to his beloved home State. When Senator Mansfield became majority leader, his right-hand man, Stan Kimmitt, became his secretary of the majority. For 11 years, Mike and Stan worked quietly behind the scenes reaching across party lines to provide support to move the country forward. Kimmitt's long tenure represented a deep desire to work behind the scenes with both sides to provide support to move the country forward. It is clear that both sides respected this commitment. Stan's leadership and ability to move opposing forces forward made him the perfect choice to become Secretary of the Senate, which he served as from 1977 to 1981. In this role Stan became a very influential member of the Senate. He was never elected but many Senators used to affectionately refer to him as the 101st Senator or the third Senator from Montana. After Stan left the Secretary of the Senate position, he continued to be involved in governmental affairs. He sat on the board for the Democratic Leadership Council in 1985. The DLC was instrumental in introducing then-Governor Bill Clinton in 1985 to a wider public. Stan represented the same ideals that Bill Clinton ran on in 1992. He wanted to find politicians that would represent a new energetic vitality in the Democratic Party as Bill Clinton promised to do. In spite of Stan's own notoriety, he continued to value his Montana roots. In 1983, he founded the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation. The Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation was a tribute to his former boss but to Montana as well. The foundation is part of Mansfield's legacy and the causes he advocated during his time in the Senate. The foundation sponsors exchanges, dialogues, and publications to create networks or partnerships between U.S. and Asian leaders. The foundation provides excellent educational opportunities through fellowships to Japan for government employees. Throughout the early 1990s Stan continued political activism that had been the trademark of his life. In 1991, Stan founded a political consulting firm now known as Kimmitt, Senter, Coates and Weinfurter. Stan brought to politics and his time in the Senate a strong sense of deep moral principles and convictions. He believed that government could and should be a force for good. Stan was very much the idealist and did not see bitter division in the Senate only as ideological disagreements. To Stan, the Senate was one big family with all the characteristics of a family. Stan lived his political life by three principles: First was to hold true to your conviction; second, be grateful for what is given to you and the opportunities you are given; and third, never give up unless you can make it better. The other value Stan saw as important in his political life was ``to thine own self be true.'' Stan started his professional life as a public servant. It seems only fitting that the last day of his life he started the morning in the Senate cloakroom on the Democratic side talking with former colleagues and friends. That night he attended an event honoring retiring Louisiana Democratic Senator John Breaux. Stan died honoring a fellow colleague who shared his beliefs and deeply felt convictions. He died doing what he loved best, which was very appropriate, very fitting. Stan, you will be deeply missed in the Senate, but you will not soon be forgotten.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly about legislation to rename the U.S. Courthouse in San Francisco after Judge James R. Browning. This legislation cleared Congress over the weekend. It is a long overdue honor for one of the Nation's finest public servants. I would like to thank my Senate friends and colleagues for their hard work and support, particularly Senator Boxer, who sponsored the Browning courthouse naming legislation. I would also like to recognize and thank Senator Hatch and Senator Stevens. Their efforts were crucial in moving this legislation across the finish line in the 109th Congress. Let me tell you about Judge James R. Browning. First, he is a great man and a fine judge who has committed the better part of his life to promoting and improving the administration of justice. Montana is proud to call him one of their own, and I am proud to call him my friend. Judge Browning was born in Great Falls, MT, just like another famous Montana son--former Senate Majority Leader and Ambassador to Japan, Mike Mansfield. Judge Browning grew up in the small town of Belt, MT, and married his high-school sweetheart Marie Rose from Belfry, MT. Judge Browning received his law degree from the University of Montana in 1941, graduating at the top of his class. He worked for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice before joining the U.S. Army where he served in Military Intelligence for 3 years, attaining the rank of first lieutenant and winning the Bronze Star. After the war, he returned to the Justice Department, eventually rising through the ranks to become Executive Assistant to the Attorney General. In 1953, he entered private practice, leaving after 5 years to serve as the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court at the request of Chief Justice Earl Warren. In that position, he held the Bible during President John F. Kennedy's inauguration. In 1961, President Kennedy named James Browning to be a Circuit Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judge Browning has served on that court with distinction and honor for more than 40 years, longer than any other judge in Ninth Circuit history. He was still working 6 days a week as an active federal judge when he turned 80 in 1998, and he did not take senior status until November of 2000. He has participated in nearly 1000 published appellate decisions. Judge Browning was named chief judge of the Ninth Circuit in 1976. During his 12-year tenure as the chief judge, the Ninth Circuit expanded from 23 to 28 judges, eliminated its case backlog entirely, and reduced by half the time needed to decide appeals. He worked tirelessly to improve the administration of the courts, dramatically increasing the efficiency and productivity of the Ninth Circuit, all the while emphasizing collegiality and civility among his colleagues on the Ninth Circuit. Judge Browning's leadership and innovation sparked similar administrative reforms throughout the country. Judge Browning is held in the highest regard by both bench and bar across California, in Montana, and within the Ninth Circuit legal community. His rich and distinguished career spans more than six decades--most of it spent in public service. We have finally recognized his long service to his country and the Ninth Circuit by renaming the U.S. Courthouse in San Francisco in his honor. It is a long way from Belt, MT, but Judge Browning never forgot his roots, and now neither will the Ninth Circuit that he helped to build.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I make note of a technical error in the drafting of the Wool Trust Fund, which was included in H.R.1047, the ``Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004.'' Section 4002, entitled ``Extension and Modification of Duty Suspension on Wool Products, Wool Research Fund, Wool Duty Refunds,'' extends the current Wool Trust Fund through December 31, 2007. The purpose of this provision is to extend the current program, as well as to provide grants to textile mills, for an additional 2 years beyond the current date of expiration, which is December 31, 2005. This fact is reflected in the conference report of H.R. 1047, in which the conferees observe that the House recedes to the Senate proposal ``so that all programs are extended by two years beyond the current date of expiration of the current programs.'' In other words, all provisions-- including all programs and all tariff reductions--are to be in effect through 2007. Unfortunately, a drafting error occurs in section 4002(a)(5), entitled ``Fabrics of Combed Wool,'' and mistakenly terminates the extension of duty reductions, for the goods identified in that subsection, at the end of 2006, rather than 2007. This error is clearly and patently inconsistent with the expressed intention of the conferees to extend the program through 2007. I urge the Members of the 109th Congress to correct this technical error, in order to allow the program to operate as clearly and expressly intended by the 108th Congress.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I happen to be the ranking member, that is the most senior Democrat, on the Finance Committee. In years past, I was chairman of the Finance Committee when this side had the majority.

Mr. BAUCUS. Yes, those were the halcyon days when this country was represented really well. But I might say the provision we have been discussing; namely, the degree to which Members of Congress should have access to any American's income tax returns, is really an outgrowth of the Nixon years. That is, in the Watergate years, when too many Government officials had access to individuals' income tax returns and we enacted so-called Watergate reforms, one of the reforms was a section in the code which basically provides that no one in Congress has access to any American income tax return--as well they should not--except for the chairman of the Finance Committee and the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the committees that have jurisdiction over our tax laws. Someone might ask, why should they have jurisdiction? Why should the chairman of the Finance Committee have the right to look into an individual's tax returns? That is a question that should be asked very seriously and it is one we should take very seriously. But the reason that is in the law today is so the Finance Committee can exercise jurisdiction or proper oversight over our Tax Code, especially looking into how companies, maybe individuals but certainly companies, use the tax system to shelter their income--what do they do; how do they do it--so we in the Congress can enact legislation that closes those loopholes. That is what we have done. Within the last couple of years, with the so-called Enron reforms as we looked at Enron's tax returns, we found a lot of provisions where actually the company was overstating assets in a certain area and understating in another, sheltering a lot of income, clearly not in the spirit of the income tax returns. I might say, too, that, frankly, the Tax Code is so complex and the returns are so complex it is difficult for the enforcement agency, the IRS, to look at all of these shelters and to enforce the tax law. As we know, a low percentage of tax returns are currently audited, and it is very difficult for the Joint Tax Committee because they do not have the resources to look at all of this. The long and short of this is that we in the Finance Committee, the chairman of the Finance Committee and his staff, looked at income tax returns, including Enron, and we made appropriate deletions to protect proprietary interests. Nevertheless, we thought we should exercise that responsibility and we did, very carefully and professionally, and the result was not to use individual tax returns but, rather, closing a lot of loopholes of which companies, in this case Enron, were unfortunately taking advantage. The current law also provides for civil and criminal penalties for any unauthorized disclosure by the chairman of the committee or authorized staff of any unauthorized information, which there well should be. If any of us were to divulge any of the information we might have, we go to jail, and we should. The provision we are talking about here, that is, in this big appropriations bill right in front of me, basically says the chairmen of the Appropriations Committee, House and Senate, have the same authority, and that they can also exercise that authority and have access to income tax returns without any penalty whatsoever, no criminal penalties, no civil penalties, for any unauthorized disclosure. Well, what does that mean? It does not take a rocket scientist to know that means anybody on the staff of the Appropriations Committee can just take that tax return information and can go to the press, can use it however they want on anybody, without any penalty. That is an outrage. Even in the dead of night, who would try to enact a provision like that? And that is what the majority has done very late at night. My staff happened to find this provision several hours ago. I called them this morning to see what they found in the conference report. They said: We are still trying to download it. We divided it into different parts. We are not going to be able to go through it all until 5 o'clock today, not even see what is in this conference report until 5 today. That is about eight or nine people in my office, each downloading from the House Ways and Means Web site various portions of what is in this conference report. I am informed that the House has gone out. I do not know if that is accurate, but I am informed the House has adjourned and that is highly, highly reprehensible. They passed this provision in the middle of the night, did not tell a soul, did not consult with the Finance Committee, did not consult with the House Ways and Means Committee. They certainly did not consult with the Finance Committee. The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee found out about this a few hours ago and he is as upset as I am. The chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Mr. Stevens, I am told he did not even know this was in there until a couple of hours ago when he was informed about it. That is what I am told. He did not know it was in there. Come on. It seems to me that the one resolution yet available is for the Senate to amend--it is a procedural motion here--the enrolling resolution, to strike that language and send it back to the House. I have to figure out there is a way for the House to stay and meet. I am told they are just doing special orders or something like that. I am told they have not adjourned sine die. It is clear that if they want to change this, the House of Representatives can find a way to change it. They can find a way if they want to. If they do not, I have to reach one conclusion, they do not want to. They want to give the Appropriations Committee chairman this unfettered access to individual income tax returns and the ability to release it to anybody in the world without any punishment, without any civil penalties, without any criminal penalties. I ask the House of Representatives, I ask the Speaker of the House, I ask the leadership of the majority party in this body, to find a way to get the House of Representatives to accept our resolution. I have been told we will have a colloquy or we will take this up later. We all know what happens when we take things up later--it does not happen. Things have a way of getting lost. One has to strike when the iron is hot. The iron is really hot now. When the American public hears about this--we can bet dollars to donuts there is probably nobody in the press gallery right now because they are out writing their stories about this--we are going to hear about this and I would think that the majority party would like to nip this thing in the bud and get it done right now and not have it in the press for weeks and months because it is on the doorstep of the majority party of the House and the Senate. It is on their doorstep. If they want to change it and delete it, they can do that. If they do not want to change it or delete it, then they are not doing it. Since I have been in this body, I cannot think--I am sure there are others but I cannot think of an outrage as reprehensible as this one. Can my colleagues believe it, unfettered access to individual tax returns which are supposed to be private income, that can be divulged to anybody without any sanctions? Come on. How can anybody even conceive of suggesting something like that? Somebody did it in the middle of the night, and I might say we still do not know what is in this legislation. As I said before, the chairman of the committee did not even know about it. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee did not know about it. They do now, and I call on them to do something about this to get this problem solved right now. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I don't see Senator Grassley, the chairman of the committee, in the Chamber. I expect him momentarily. In the meantime, I will say a few words with respect to the pending legislation. I am pleased, frankly, that in the final days of the 108th Congress, the Senate is set to pass at long last the miscellaneous tariff bill. This bill reduces or eliminates tariffs on literally hundreds of products that U.S. companies use to make products in America. It is a collection of many bills too small to be considered independently, and, traditionally, Congress collects these inexpensive and noncontroversial bills together into one big omnibus bill which the Senate then passes by unanimous consent. That is our tradition in the Senate. Unfortunately, that did not happen with this bill this time. For the first time in the history of the process, the House insisted we go to conference on the bill. Frankly, that is unfortunate. In the aggregate, the provisions of this bill represent a significant cost savings for U.S. manufacturers simply struggling to compete. We owe it to them to get the process back on track in the next Congress. I hope we can do that, and I promise to work very hard toward that end. I wish to highlight two provisions in this bill in particular that will help my State of Montana remain competitive. One is a provision that eliminates the tariff on specialized components used by a Bozeman- based boot manufacturer called Schnee Shoes. This is a top-of-the-line company. They make the best boots for hunting. If a hunter goes out pheasant hunting, duck hunting, you buy Schnee. They are terrific. They produce first-class products. Eliminating the tariff will save them tens of thousands of dollars a year and allow them to keep good-paying jobs in Bozeman, MT. The other provision improves the competitiveness of U.S. wool. We produce a lot of wool in Montana--$2 million a year. As other commodities and textiles, wool has faced an increasingly difficult marketplace over the past several years. In response, U.S. wool growers adopted a positive approach to embrace world markets; that is, setting up a wool trust fund. Through the wool trust fund, first established in 2000, U.S. exports of wool have risen sixfold as a share of domestic production. This successful program of the wool trust fund is, unfortunately, scheduled to expire next year. But this bill renews the wool trust fund through the year 2007 and allows the United States and Montana wool growers to continue to compete. I also want to speak about one other provision of this bill, normal trade relations with Laos, that I know has generated some controversy. I support granting normal trade relations to Laos. In the absence of normal trade relations, Laos is subject to average tariffs of 45 percent, with peaks of 60 to 90 percent for important Laotian products such as T-shirts and bamboo chairs. In contrast, most U.S. trading partners, including Laotian competitors Burma, China, Cambodia, and Vietnam, face average tariffs of only 2.4 percent compared, again, with Laos of 45 percent. Now, I know some of my colleagues oppose granting normal trade relations to Laos. They believe Laos must work harder on improving its human rights record before receiving normal trade relations. But normal trade relations, I must emphasize, is not a special privilege the United States grants only to certain countries, and it does not signify approval of a country's policies. It is not a free trade agreement or a preference program. Rather, it is the baseline economic relationship the United States has with virtually every other country in the world-- the baseline. In fact, there are only three countries on Earth that do not have normal trade relations: Cuba, North Korea, and Laos, and Laos is the only one of the three that has full, normal diplomatic relations with the United States. Laos has worked with the United States closely in accounting for U.S. prisoners of war and missing in action in Laos during the Vietnam war, supported U.S. counterterrorism efforts in Southeast Asia after 9/11, and has cooperated in a long-term bilateral counternarcotics program. Granting normal trade relations to Laos could have a dramatic effect on improving the dismal economic conditions in that country. Laos has the lowest life expectancy in Southeast Asia, and the highest fertility rate. It also has the highest adult illiteracy rate, particularly among women. Cambodia, on the other hand, has created more than 200,000 jobs since the United States granted that country normal trade relations in 1996. My hope is that normal trade relations for Laos will have a similar effect. Granting normal trade relations to Laos will also create opportunities to open the society, improve human rights, improve religious freedom, and improve the rule of law. That is why my good friend, Senator Grassley, and I have worked hard to pass normal trade relations for Laos, and why it is right to include it in this bill. I think it is time for us to remove an awkward legacy of the Vietnam war and grant normal trade relations to Laos. This bill includes a long list of provisions that will help American competitiveness. We should bring debate on this bill to a close and pass this constructive measure. I urge my colleagues, therefore, to vote for cloture. Mr. President, before I turn the floor over to my good friend, the chairman of our committee, I would like to thank several terrific staff members. I thank Everett Eissenstat and Zach Paulsen of the Republican staff who worked very hard to get this miscellaneous tariffs bill passed. Also, from the majority leader's staff, I thank Rohit Kumar and Andy Olson, two extremely able and very helpful people, who helped get these provisions into this bill. I also thank, on my staff, Sara Andrews, who really led the charge. She did a great job, assisted by John Gilliland, who is equally competent. That is an understatement. Both of them are just aces, and I am very proud of them. I thank them for their assistance. I reserve the remainder of my time.

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 rise today to honor a distinguished man and educator, Montana's 2004 Professor of the Year award winner, Dr. Harry Fritz. Harry was born in the State of Maryland, but he graduated from Missoula County High School in Montana in 1956. He attended Dartmouth College to earn his bachelor of arts degree. Harry's relationship with the University of Montana, located in Missoula, began when he attended the university to get his master of arts degree. After earning his Ph.D. from Washington University in St. Louis, Harry returned to the University of Montana, and that is where he has hung his hat ever since. Harry is the chairman of the Department of History and a full-time professor at the University of Montana. He exemplifies the type of professor Montana has come to expect from its higher education community. He is a first-rate guy. He is just aces. He is an educator who meets the highest standards of professional excellence. And he is a student's teacher. He connects with students and draws them into our Nation's history. I might say, I first met and knew Harry Fritz back about 1972, somewhere in there, when I was practicing law in Missoula, MT, and was running for the State legislature. Professor Fritz and a couple friends of ours would get together about every couple, three weeks and have pizza and beer. We called ourselves the ``Beer Committee,'' and Harry was head of the Beer Committee. It was a super bunch of friends. We would talk about the world's problems and service and what needed to be done for Montana and the Nation. It was, in many respects, the enthusiasm and knowledge of Harry Fritz that got me interested in public service. He is that kind of a guy. I might also say, he has a wonderful sense of humor. He is a tall man. He looks a lot like Abe Lincoln. When he puts on his beard, he portrays Abraham Lincoln and performs little skits. As a history professor, he is able to bring President Lincoln and lots of other aspects surrounding President Lincoln into his classes at the University of Montana. I might say, too, his classes are always the first to be fully subscribed. People want to go to Professor Fritz's history classes because he connects so much, he brings history to life so much, with a sense of humor, with compassion, and with insight and perception. It is no wonder he has been named Professor of the Year for 2004. Many of us who know Harry also are reminded of all the ways he has served. He not only is a history professor, a terrific professor at that, but he also served in the State legislature in Montana in the Montana Senate and the Montana House. He wants to do what he can to serve the people of our State. His wife Nancy is equally active, equally dedicated to service. Nancy, too, was a representative in the Montana State legislature at one time. So they are people who exemplify the best of human nature; that is, serving people. I have a view that the most noble human endeavor is service. It is service to community, it is service to church, it is service to friends, service in whatever way makes the most sense for each one of us. Many of us here believe that. That is why we are here. I certainly know that is why the Presiding Officer is here, who has so much believed in service in the various capacities that he has served his State and this Nation. Harry Fritz is another who believes in service. I think it is important to honor and recognize people such as Harry, because the more Harry Fritzes there are in this country, in this world, by far, the more quickly we are going to solve some mutual problems. I again pay my highest compliments to a wonderful friend, a terrific man, and one of the best professors any student could ever have, Professor Harry Fritz. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, such time as he might consume.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask for the vote and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask that all time be yielded back on both sides.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. I suggest the absence of a quorum, not charged to the minority side but charged to the majority side.

Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate the discussion with the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from North Dakota. I ask unanimous consent 20 minutes be reserved for the use of Senator Byrd when he is able to come to the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to the following fellow and interns of the Finance Committee staff during consideration of S. 2986, the debt limit bill: Mary Tuckerman, Priya Mahanti, Audrey Schultz, Brittney McClary, Kelsie Eggensperger, Paige Lester, Jeremy Sylestine, Jodi George, Janis Lazda, Chris Knopes, Scott Landes, and Cuong Huynh.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today in disappointment, but also with resolve. After more than 2 years of negotiations between the United States and Canada, there is still no agreement on how to manage softwood lumber trade between our two countries. This is disappointing, particularly given the importance of the issue. Perhaps what is most disappointing, though, is that the negotiations appear to have fallen off, despite the fact that parties last year seemed close to an agreement. There might be some who think that the recent NAFTA decisions signal an imminent conclusion of the litigation, and that deposits collected by U.S. Customs will be returned soon. As one who has seen this dispute wax and wane for nearly 30 years, this seems to me a naive expectation. The fact is that the recent NAFTA decisions had more to do with a bitter disagreement between the NAFTA panelists and the U.S. International Trade Commission about investigative methodologies than whether or not the Canadian timber policies are consistent with NAFTA obligations. The bottom line--and this is the issue at the root of this dispute--is that the Canadian policies are deeply inconsistent with the notion of a free and integrated North American market. The timber subsidies provide Canadian mills with a significant, artificial advantage. Until this basic issue is resolved, this dispute--including this litigation and the duties imposed on importers--will continue. In my judgment, the most effective, durable, and fair resolution to this decades-old problem will be found only through a negotiated settlement. This means both parties sitting down at the table and finding a mutually acceptable solution that provides for timber policies that are consistent and compatible. However, pulling away from the negotiating table and relying on litigation isn't going to get us there. Under current U.S. law, the deposits sitting in escrow are eligible for liquidation. As I have said, I would prefer a negotiated settlement--one that resolves all matters of disagreement, including the disposition of these deposits. but some involved in the negotiation appear to have decided upon litigation as their preferred method of resolution. If it is necessary for more and my colleagues to assert the legal rights available to the U.S. industry as a way of reminding the parties of the stakes that are still very much on the table, then that is what we will do. Today, my good friend, Larry Craig and I have introduced a bill that would order the Commerce Department to begin the process of liquidating the approximately $3 billion sitting in escrow, as a result of the antidumping and countervailing duties imposed upon imports of Canadian softwood lumber since March 2002. Further, these deposits are to be distributed to the U.S. lumber industry, which have been seriously injured by Canada's timber policies and which petitioned for these duties in the first place. This measure is consistent with current U.S. law and, if enacted, I expect the U.S. government to defend it to the hilt. I hope that our action today will spark a return--by both sides--to the negotiating table. However, if it does not, and if a settlement is not reached, I will not hesitate to push forcefully for enactment of this legislation.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today in disappointment, but also with resolve. After more than 2 years of negotiations between the United States and Canada, there is still no agreement on how to manage softwood lumber trade between our two countries. This is disappointing, particularly given the importance of the issue. Perhaps what is most disappointing, though, is that the negotiations appear to have fallen off, despite the fact that parties last year seemed close to an agreement. There might be some who think that the recent NAFTA decisions signal an imminent conclusion of the litigation, and that deposits collected by U.S. Customs will be returned soon. As one who has seen this dispute wax and wane for nearly 30 years, this seems to me a naive expectation. The fact is that the recent NAFTA decisions had more to do with a bitter disagreement between the NAFTA panelists and the U.S. International Trade Commission about investigative methodologies than whether or not the Canadian timber policies are consistent with NAFTA obligations. The bottom line--and this is the issue at the root of this dispute--is that the Canadian policies are deeply inconsistent with the notion of a free and integrated North American market. The timber subsidies provide Canadian mills with a significant, artificial advantage. Until this basic issue is resolved, this dispute--including this litigation and the duties imposed on importers--will continue. In my judgment, the most effective, durable, and fair resolution to this decades-old problem will be found only through a negotiated settlement. This means both parties sitting down at the table and finding a mutually acceptable solution that provides for timber policies that are consistent and compatible. However, pulling away from the negotiating table and relying on litigation isn't going to get us there. Under current U.S. law, the deposits sitting in escrow are eligible for liquidation. As I have said, I would prefer a negotiated settlement--one that resolves all matters of disagreement, including the disposition of these deposits. but some involved in the negotiation appear to have decided upon litigation as their preferred method of resolution. If it is necessary for more and my colleagues to assert the legal rights available to the U.S. industry as a way of reminding the parties of the stakes that are still very much on the table, then that is what we will do. Today, my good friend, Larry Craig and I have introduced a bill that would order the Commerce Department to begin the process of liquidating the approximately $3 billion sitting in escrow, as a result of the antidumping and countervailing duties imposed upon imports of Canadian softwood lumber since March 2002. Further, these deposits are to be distributed to the U.S. lumber industry, which have been seriously injured by Canada's timber policies and which petitioned for these duties in the first place. This measure is consistent with current U.S. law and, if enacted, I expect the U.S. government to defend it to the hilt. I hope that our action today will spark a return--by both sides--to the negotiating table. However, if it does not, and if a settlement is not reached, I will not hesitate to push forcefully for enactment of this legislation.