Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I congratulate Chairman Grassley for assuring that the conference committee included Section 703, civil rights tax relief, in the conference report. As a member of the conference committee, I was very pleased to support this very important provision, which enjoyed strong bipartisan support among Senate and House colleagues. As I understand it, the case law with respect to the tax treatment of attorney's fees paid by those that receive settlements or judgments in connection with a claim of unlawful discrimination, a False Claims Act, ``Qui Tam,'' proceeding or similar actions is unclear and that its application was questionable as interpreted by the IRS. Further, it was never the intent of Congress that the attorneys' fees portions of such recoveries should be included in taxable income whether for regular income or alternative minimum tax purposes. Is it the understanding of the chairman that it was the conferees' intention for Section 703 to clarify the proper interpretation of the prior law, and any settlements prior to the date of enactment should be treated in a manner consistent with such intent?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to ask the chairman of the Committee on Finance an additional question regarding the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Finance Committee Chairman. There is one last point, I think, we should address. First, I would like to add that it's my understanding that the Finance Committee has had jurisdiction over customs for 188 years, and so I am glad to see today that the Committee's expertise will continue to be brought to bear on the customs revenue functions and the commercial functions and operations of our customs officials. As part of that longstanding oversight, I note that referral of nominees for the position of Commissioner of Customs has been to the Finance Committee. I ask the Chairman, does he anticipate that such referral will continue in the future?

Mr. BAUCUS. This is a very important topic. As the Chairman of the Finance Committee will recall, the issue of customs authority was a major one in the debate leading up to passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The Finance Committee held a hearing in July 2002, followed by a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Governmental Affairs Committee. We stressed the importance of preserving the revenue collection and trade facilitation functions of the U.S. Customs Service, even as that agency moved into the Department of Homeland Security with an added national security focus. I would be pleased to engage in a colloquy on this topic with my good friend from Iowa.

Mr. BAUCUS. Yes, and I believe we can both agree that our efforts were successful in preserving the revenue functions, commercial functions, and commercial operations of the Customs Service, including oversight of those functions and operations within the Committee on Finance.

Mr. BAUCUS. I concur in thanking our colleagues for their cooperation in addressing this important issue. For the benefit of the record, would the Chairman of the Finance Committee outline the clarifications that have been added to the resolution?

Mr. BAUCUS. That specific example is very helpful. Does the Chairman of the Finance Committee have any other examples in mind?

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chairman. Are there any other matters that fall within the exception to transfer of jurisdiction to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs?

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chairman of the Finance Committee for his elaboration of the provisions that have been added to clarify the parameters of the jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and for his description of illustrative and non-exhaustive examples of the types of jurisdiction that will remain within the Committee on Finance.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I offer this technical clarifying amendment to the underlying resolution. It delineates committee jurisdiction. Part of it is with respect to the Customs Service, which the Finance Committee has had jurisdiction over for 188 years. Now the Homeland Security agency appropriately should handle all national security matters in protecting American security. It is appropriate that those functions be transferred to that department which has that jurisdiction. It is also important that the Finance Committee maintain jurisdiction over not the national security aspects of Customs but the commerce aspects of Customs. This amendment clarifies that distinction. It is in no way intended to have jurisdiction over the security aspects of homeland security--only the commercial side, for which customarily the Finance Committee has the appropriate role.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the underlying bill which I send to the desk.

Mr. BAUCUS. Yes.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, what is the pending business?

Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, at this moment there are several matters pending before the Congress before we recess and/or adjourn. One of them is something that is extremely critical to a lot of people in our country and that is disaster assistance. It is not only the hurricanes in Florida, but it is the droughts farmers and ranchers have faced throughout our country, obviously especially in rural parts of America, and in my State, Montana, quite severely. Montana has faced a drought, mostly around the southwestern part of our State. There are parts of Montana that are not droughted out. It is precarious. Because of the almost arbitrary patterns of nature, it is hard to know where it is going to rain or where it is not going to rain, but the fact is, a lot of people are in very tough shape. They need disaster assistance just like the folks in Florida. Maybe Louisiana and Alabama need disaster assistance as well. It is important for us to remember that we are here, frankly, to help Americans. We are not 50 different nations. We are one country. We are one Congress with one Senate and one House. We have one President. It is true that we have 50 States, but we are one country and we have one Congress. The Constitution provides Congress will enact legislation and the executive branch will administer the legislation, but it is up to us to do what is right for our country, for America. Sometimes an argument is made, and I even heard this argument made on the floor, that hurricanes are sudden and when there is damage those folks deserve assistance, but droughts are over time; therefore, they don't deserve disaster assistance because it is not really a disaster. It is something that is an adverse consequence that happens over time. Responsible Senators are making that argument to me. Actually, I question whether they are responsible if they are making that argument. It is a totally fallacious argument. It is wrong for a Senator to say, even if it is in private: You folks don't need agricultural disaster assistance because that's over time; that's not a sudden, immediate occurrence. The problem, obviously, is that whenever there is a hurricane--and it is too bad, the damage it causes--our national networks focus on it because it is a sudden, at that time, at that one moment disaster, so the TV cameras are there, the correspondents are there. How many times did we see the shots of disaster in Florida? And well we should, because it is terrible what those people are going through. There were parts of Florida hit several times and we should help those people who need help. There is no doubt about that. But, as I said, we should help those people who need help, and there are some other people who need help on account of nature's disastrous occurrences and they are farmers and ranchers. It is true that droughts have occurred every 4 or 5 or 6 years. But that does not diminish the argument that they need help, too. It is nature that caused the problem. They didn't cause the problem. They deserve help just as everybody else deserves help. We are one country, one Congress, one Senate, and one House, and we should very quickly give that aid, not only to the folks in Florida but also to the folks across our country who suffered disaster because of drought. Many times on the floor Senators have shown photographs of drought in the country. It is real. I ask all Members--of course they don't have the time--to get out of Washington, DC. Get out of the cities. Go across America and see where the drought is. They are droughted out. There are also floods which have totally destroyed crops. There are floods in eastern North Dakota, for example, near the Mississippi River. Take North Dakota, it is flood at one end of the State and it is drought at the other end of the State--they are both disasters. That is, both phenomena have destroyed the crops. This is pretty simple stuff. It is very simple. It is basic. I don't know why we can't get together and help folks who suffered losses around the country, natural losses--we are talking about natural losses here--just as folks in the South, particularly Florida, suffered natural losses. Then there is the other argument: There is a farm bill. The farm bill takes care of farmers. There is a farm bill and it is a pretty big farm bill. Let's look at the facts. How much of that farm bill actually went to farmers? A very low percentage. Most of the farm bill, I might say, went to other programs--the Food Stamp Program. In fact, only about 18 percent of the total farm bill is dollars allocated to farmers and ranchers, essentially support payments. Why? To fight other countries that have bigger support payments for their farmers which make our crops even less competitive, so we have to have a farm bill to make sure our farmers are competitive, too. Clearly, that is one reason for the next round of the WTO talks, the Doha Round; namely, for producing nations to begin working together to lower some of their price supports, particularly export subsidies. That is the most heinous form of subsidy. Get rid of those export subsidies, as the Europeans have agreed they will begin to do, and then we can address the problems of the farmers. But the main point is only 18 percent goes to farmers; the rest goes to other programs, mainly food stamp programs. Add to that, that 18 percent is irrelevant to the phenomenon we are talking about. It is irrelevant. Why is it irrelevant? It is irrelevant because that is a farm program which pays farmers essentially only when they produce crops. It is a support payment program. It depends upon the price of crops. But when farmers do not produce any crops because of a natural disaster, the farm program does not help them. It doesn't help them and that is why we have agricultural disaster assistance programs. We have had several--many in the past. That is the same kind of program we should have right here today. So I say to my colleagues who are now negotiating agricultural disaster assistance, the real question is, What do we do now? The House passed a $3 billion agricultural disaster assistance bill. It is folded into the hurricane assistance dollars. It is now over here in the Senate. The conferees are trying to decide whether that should be put in the Homeland Security appropriations, which is in conference. I don't care about the process. That is irrelevant to me. I only care about the result. The result should be that, while we give aid to folks who suffer damage on account of the hurricanes, we should also give aid to our farmers and ranchers across our country who have suffered an equally devastating natural disaster. Let's just do it and do it now. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate agreed, by unanimous consent, to an amendment that Senator Grassley and I offered to S. Res. 445, the Senate intelligence reform resolution. Our amendment will preserve the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee over the commercial operations of what has historically been known as the United States Customs Service. The United States Customs Service is one of the oldest agencies in the U.S. Government. It was created in 1789 to collect tariffs which, at that time, were the principal source of revenue funding the Federal Government. Until 1816, the Senate had no standing committees. Senators established ad-hoc committees to consider specific bills. In his 1815 message to Congress, President Madison recommended a series of controversial economic measures, including tariff revisions and the creation of a second national bank. The Senate responded by creating the Select Committee on Finance and Uniform National Currency. In his 1816 message, President Madison recommended a further series of economic measures. This time, the Senate responded by creating the Committee on Finance as a standing committee on December 10, 1816. Under the leadership of Chairman George Campbell, Democrat of Tennessee, the committee's very first task was to consider the Tariff Act of 1816. Other original members of the Finance Committee included Senators Chace of Vermont, Bibb of Georgia, King of New York, and Mason of New Hampshire. Over the ensuing 188 years, the Finance Committee's jurisdiction has come to include not just tariff legislation, but all legislation related to international trade. Up until 1930, trade policy had been set primarily through Congressional establishment of tariffs, under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. When, however, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 became associated with the Depression, Congress shifted its approach. As the new Roosevelt administration considered proposals to reduce tariffs, Secretary of State Cordell Hull suggested that, instead of reducing tariffs unilaterally, Congress authorize the President to negotiate reciprocal reductions. When, in 1934, President Roosevelt endorsed this approach and sent it to Congress, the bill was referred to the Finance Committee. The bill was enacted into law as the Trade Act of 1934, establishing the basic model for trade policy ever since. As a result, the committee acquired jurisdiction not only over tariffs, but over a broad range of issues implicated by U.S. trade policy. Throughout those 188 years, the Finance Committee has retained jurisdiction over the Customs Service. And, like that of the Committee, the mission of Customs has expanded to cover a range of trade issues. Today, Customs continues to serve a revenue collection function. This year, it will collect nearly $25 billion in import duties, making it the second largest source of government revenue after the income tax. In today's globalized world, however, Customs has also come to serve a vital role in facilitating trade and, through trade, the nation's economic well-being. For example, in fiscal year 2004, Customs will process approximately 28 million entry summaries, covering imports worth $1.36 trillion. That is more than 56,000 separate merchandise entries every day. In fiscal year 2003, Customs made 6,500 seizures of goods, worth nearly $1 billion, that were imported in violation of the intellectual property rights of U.S. businesses and individuals. Customs enforces the U.S. trade remedy laws, collecting $1.5 billion in antidumping and countervailing duties in fiscal year 2004. In addition, Customs enforces country-of-origin labeling rules, blocks trade in endangered species and conflict diamonds, collects trade data widely relied upon in the government and private sector, fights child pornography, and issues hundreds of classification and valuation rulings every year. Thousands of American businesses and jobs depend on Customs to process imported inputs efficiently, so they can reduce production costs through just-in-time inventory systems. Over time, Customs has also come to have a national security mission. Customs agents are often the first line of defense at the border. For example, it was a Customs agent who apprehended the so-called ``millennium bomber'' crossing the border from Canada into Washington State in December 1999. Until recently, Customs was housed within the Department of the Treasury. Treasury was well-suited to oversee both the revenue collection and commercial facilitation functions of Customs, and to ensure that those functions were carried out in a manner calculated to advance the economic growth and well-being of the United States. After September 11, 2001, however, things changed. We learned that day how important it is to ensure the strongest possible coordination among the many Federal Agencies charged with our domestic security. In the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Congress moved the Customs Service from the umbrella of the Treasury Department into the new Department of Homeland Security. The Customs Service, as such, no longer exists as a single entity. Rather, its many functions were divided among two parts of the Border and Transportation Security Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security--Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. When Congress created the Department of Homeland Security, there was widespread concern in the business community that moving Customs from Treasury--an agency whose principal mission is the health of the U.S. economy to a new agency principally concerned with national security would lead to a shift in Customs' focus away from trade facilitation-- with adverse consequences for those businesses and for the economy as a whole. For some agencies, this problem was solved by splitting the agency apart and moving to DHS only the people directly working on security issues. For example, this is what happened at APHIS. That solution did not work for Customs, because many Customs employees perform both commercial and security functions as part of their jobs. Instead, Congress made Customs serve two masters. The employees of Customs were physically moved into the Department of Homeland Security. But the commercial functions of Customs remain under the policy control of the Treasury Department. Section 412 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 expressly provides that ``authority related to Customs revenue functions'' that was previously vested in the Secretary of the Treasury ``shall not be transferred'' to the Secretary of Homeland Security. There was some flexibility built into the law. That way, over time, the Secretary of Treasury could delegate some responsibilities to the Secretary of Homeland Security if experience demonstrated that a particular Customs function was more closely related to security than to trade facilitation. As a practical matter, the result has been shared authority over Customs by Treasury and Homeland Security. Similarly, in the Senate, the result has been shared oversight by the Finance Committee and the Committee on Government Affairs. One committee focuses on homeland security issues and the other on commercial issues. In response to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, the Senate is now engaged in a debate over how to reorganize our committee structure to provide stronger, more coherent oversight over issues related to homeland security. In my view, the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission do not justify any changes in committee oversight jurisdiction of Customs. The Commission has recommended centralizing oversight over homeland security issues in one committee in each House. The clear purpose of that recommendation is to centralize oversight over homeland security functions, not over other functions that happen to be performed by individuals employed by the Department of Homeland Security. The Grassley-Baucus amendment to S. Res. 445 ensures that the Finance Committee will retain the jurisdiction over the commercial facilitation functions of the Customs Service that the committee has held for nearly 200 years. Everyone understands that in the post-9/11 world, the United States must vigilantly protect our borders. But while we do so, we must ensure that we do not overburden commerce with other Nations. We must strike a delicate balance between protecting the Nation's borders and promoting the nation's economic health. If we lose that balance, American businesses will suffer. So will our ports, because shippers will find it faster and less expensive to send their cargo through Canadian or Mexican ports. I believe that granting jurisdiction over the business facilitation functions of the Customs Service to the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs would inevitably lead to commercial considerations being discounted heavily in the name of security. That would hurt the U.S. economy in the long run. On the other hand, retaining jurisdiction over the revenue and commercial functions of Customs in the Finance Committee in no way detracts from the ability of the new Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee to oversee those functions of Customs that pertain to border security. Separating oversight of these two functions will guarantee that commercial concerns receive a full and fair airing in any debate involving both commerce and security. So what are the functions over which the Finance Committee would retain jurisdiction under this amendment? Clearly, all the ``revenue functions'' defined in section 415 of the Homeland Security Act are included. These are generally functions that have virtually no security aspects to them--such as collecting tariffs, regulating country of origin labeling, or enforcing antidumping duty orders. The amendment also preserves Finance Committee jurisdiction over ``any commercial function'' of CBP or ICE, ``including matters related to trade facilitation and trade regulation.'' For example, the Finance Committee would retain jurisdiction over all commercial aspects of the implementation of Customs' new computer system, the Automated Commercial Environment or ACE. ACE was conceived many years ago long before 9/11--as a way to create a paperless environment that reduces paperwork and delays for goods clearing Customs and enhances the efficiency of American businesses that depend on those goods. ACE has security applications. It can be used to flag entries with suspicious documentation. And the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee can certainly look into those issues. But it is not, and never has been, primarily a security-focused project. A second example is the issue of container security. Customs is engaged in a program of public-private cooperation with shippers to try to balance security concerns with incoming cargo containers and the economic concerns of shippers. Under this amendment, the Finance Committee would retain jurisdiction over the trade facilitation aspects of Customs' inspection and clearance of cargo containers. Trade is critical to the health of the America economy. Exports alone accounted for 25 percent of U.S. economic growth between 1990 and 2000. Exports support an estimated 12 million jobs. Imports allow businesses and consumers more choice of goods and inputs and foster America's competitiveness in the global economy. For these reasons, Congress has a responsibility to ensure that Customs continues to serve the needs of the business and trade community. That can only be achieved by safeguarding a balance between Customs' trade facilitation and homeland security functions. The Grassley-Baucus amendment promotes that balance. Amendment No. 3995, Withdrawn

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a crisis occurring today in Indian country--and offer a solution. This crisis is not something new. It has been decades in the making. For too long we have neglected to adequately address this issue. This crisis is the condition of Indian jails. We held a hearing on the Finance Committee this fall to bring attention to the problem. We heard testimony from the Inspector General of the Interior Department, Mr. Earl Devaney. He issued a report that was absolutely shocking. Mr. Devaney said the conditions of Indian jails are comparable to conditions found in third-world countries. He said the jails are a natural disgrace. There are over seventy Indian jails in America. Almost all of them suffer from the same problems. They are highly understaffed and overpopulated. There are extremely high rates of suicides and escapes. Officers are undertrained or not trained at all. Many of these jails don't even have locking doors. We are talking about jails used to detain criminals and they don't have locking doors. These conditions are unacceptable. They must be fixed. It is our duty to address this problem. In my home State of Montana, we have eleven Indian jails. They are staffed with hardworking, good people. But they are not miracle workers. They cannot be faulted for the deplorable condition of their jails. Let me give you are example. On one day in June of 2002, nine of the eleven Montana Indian jails were overpopulated. The Crow Indian jail was 429 percent overcapacity. At the Blackfeet Indian jail, every single detention officer was assaulted last year. One major reason these jails are in such poor condition is they are terribly underfunded. Tribal officers don't have the money to address the problems. Their hands are tied. We can do something about this. We must provide adequate funding for Indian jails. Today I offer a proposal to the Senate to give tribes the authority to issue tax credit bonds for the construction, maintenance, and operation of their detention facilities. These bonds give off tax credits rather than interest to their investors, allowing tribes with little resources to earn interest off the proceeds. The bonds will provide a steady stream of income to the Tribal governments. The legislation will provide money that is so desperately needed to address the problems facing Indian jails. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a crisis occurring today in Indian country--and offer a solution. This crisis is not something new. It has been decades in the making. For too long we have neglected to adequately address this issue. This crisis is the condition of Indian jails. We held a hearing on the Finance Committee this fall to bring attention to the problem. We heard testimony from the Inspector General of the Interior Department, Mr. Earl Devaney. He issued a report that was absolutely shocking. Mr. Devaney said the conditions of Indian jails are comparable to conditions found in third-world countries. He said the jails are a natural disgrace. There are over seventy Indian jails in America. Almost all of them suffer from the same problems. They are highly understaffed and overpopulated. There are extremely high rates of suicides and escapes. Officers are undertrained or not trained at all. Many of these jails don't even have locking doors. We are talking about jails used to detain criminals and they don't have locking doors. These conditions are unacceptable. They must be fixed. It is our duty to address this problem. In my home State of Montana, we have eleven Indian jails. They are staffed with hardworking, good people. But they are not miracle workers. They cannot be faulted for the deplorable condition of their jails. Let me give you are example. On one day in June of 2002, nine of the eleven Montana Indian jails were overpopulated. The Crow Indian jail was 429 percent overcapacity. At the Blackfeet Indian jail, every single detention officer was assaulted last year. One major reason these jails are in such poor condition is they are terribly underfunded. Tribal officers don't have the money to address the problems. Their hands are tied. We can do something about this. We must provide adequate funding for Indian jails. Today I offer a proposal to the Senate to give tribes the authority to issue tax credit bonds for the construction, maintenance, and operation of their detention facilities. These bonds give off tax credits rather than interest to their investors, allowing tribes with little resources to earn interest off the proceeds. The bonds will provide a steady stream of income to the Tribal governments. The legislation will provide money that is so desperately needed to address the problems facing Indian jails. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I share the concerns of my colleague. For many U.S. industries, the laws against unfair trade are the last line of defense. American workers and their families should be able to count on the enforcement of U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws to provide a level playing field, and they should be able to rely on the Congress to ensure that those laws are fully enforced. The manner in which agency decisions are affected by NAFTA panel decisions should be closely scrutinized by the Senate. As my colleague indicated, under the terms of the NAFTA, Chapter 19 panels are supposed to apply the law just as would a U.S. court. They are supposed to be bound by U.S. court precedents in their interpretation of U.S. law. Unfortunately, it has become clear that some of these panels think they do not have to abide by these rules. Again, one of the most blatant examples of this problem involves the ongoing lumber case. Earlier this year, the same panel that recently ordered the ITC to reverse itself had questioned some of the reasoning of the ITC in its injury decision and sent the case back to the ITC for further explanation. My understanding is that the Federal courts issue such remand orders all the time. Here, however, the panel not only told the ITC to reconsider its decision, but then gave the Commission only 7 business days in which to complete its remand determination, instead of the 60 to 90 days that a court would normally give. In response to this order from the panel, the Commission requested additional time, and explained that to properly address the panel's concerns, the ITC would have to gather new evidence and request additional comments from the parties to the case, so that all views could be heard. This should have been an easy request for the panel to grant, because just a few months earlier the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had issued an opinion stating plainly that the decision to reopen the record on remand rested exclusively with the ITC. Incredibly, the NAFTA panel ignored this binding court ruling and forbade the Commission to consider new evidence, and again demanded a new determination by the ITC in a mere 7 business days. This is another clear case of overreaching by a NAFTA panel that should not be permitted. Continued support for free trade initiatives such as NAFTA rests upon the promise of full enforcement of U.S. laws. American industries and workers must be able to rely on the promises made to them by the Congress that unfair trade practices will not be tolerated. When NAFTA panels exceed their authority, confidence is lost not only in the dispute settlement system but in trade agreements generally. We need to inject credibility back into the NAFTA system by reforming Chapter 19.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment goes to the heart of our debate over the structure and purpose of the U.S. intelligence community. My amendment addresses the allocation of resources at Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC. Much of our attention has focused on the creation of a new, independent office to oversee our intelligence activities. Often lost in this debate are the details about many of the smaller, lesser known Federal agencies whose efforts are essential to our national security. Even though many people don't know who they are, OFAC is one of our most powerful weapons in the war on terrorism, because it is charged with tracking down and identifying the international sources of terrorist financing. Unfortunately, OFAC is also tasked with administration of the Cuba travel ban. As we all know, U.S. policy toward Cuba is a highly emotional and divisive issue. Still, I would doubt that anyone seriously thinks that travel by Americans to Cuba poses a larger or more serious threat to U.S. interests than al-Qaida or the insurgents in Iraq, or Syria, Iran or North Korea. My colleagues might be surprised and disturbed, then, to learn that-- at the direction of the State Department--OFAC diverts more of its personnel resources to imposition of the Cuba travel ban than to any other country or project-specific issue. According to their records, the equivalent of 21 full-time OFAC employees are allocated to the Cuba travel ban. On the other hand, only 16 are allocated to the search al-Qaida's financial sources of support. Less than 15 full-time employee resources are spent on the former Iraq regime and its insurgents, and less than 14 are spent on Iran. Less than 10 are allocated to Syria, Sudan, and Libya combined. Afghanistan doesn't even merit one full-time employee--it receives the attention of roughly 2/3 of one full-time OFAC employee. North Korea only gets \1/3\. In other words, more OFAC personnel resources are spent on the effort to prevent Americans from vacationing in Cuba than are spent to track down and shut off the sources of funds used by al-Qaida to carry out terrorist activities. This is an appalling diversion of our resources. If we hope to defeat the disparate threats arrayed against U.S. interests--both here at home and abroad--we must dedicate our attention to the real dangers confronting us around the world. Wisely allocating our resources will better ensure our success. The amendment I offer addresses this imbalance by requiring an annual report from OFAC on how it allocates its resources and the criteria it uses to make those resource decisions. It also outlines criteria that ought to be considered when prioritizing the threats posed by different countries and groups. Among these criteria are the likelihood that a country or organization is: planning or sponsoring a direct attack on U.S. interests; participating in a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons development program; financing or allowing the financing of terrorists; or providing a safe haven to terrorists. Colleagues, this is an issue of the highest importance. My amendment simply asks for common sense in the allocation of our limited resources. We cannot expect to win the war on terrorism if we refuse to dedicate our full and focused efforts to fighting it. In this time of crisis, the American people expect us to lead with vision and clarity. My amendment offers this. I see no credible reason why OFAC should waste precious resources creating bureaucratic red tape for Montana producers who just want to negotiate legal agricultural sales to Cuba. Instead, OFAC should focus its resources where they are more urgently needed: on shutting down the financial networks of al-Qaida and other more serious threats to U.S. interests. That is why the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee supports this amendment, and that is why the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Foreign Trade Council support this amendment. I take this opportunity to thank Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, the chairwoman and ranking member managing this bill, and their staff, for all of their hard work on the Baucus-Roberts-Craig amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. It is my understanding that this legislation preserves current EDA practices and administration of the Planning Partners Program for economic development districts, as currently authorized under Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965. This is a critical program providing important continual professional and technical assistance to rural and distressed communities to assist in developing economic strategies and implementing infrastructure improvements. It is essential that the legislation maintain this program consistent with current authorization, practices and policies.