Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I totally agree. He said it much more directly, as he customarily does. I was a little more oblique and indirect, as I sometimes am. Chuck Grassley is basic good Chuck Grassley representing the State of Iowa in a very thoughtful and great way. Mr. President, I will say a few words about this bill. First, it provides meaningful tax relief. It will clearly benefit millions of middle-income Americans. It largely is made up of extensions, basically provisions, for which I and many of our colleagues worked hard when Congress enacted them in the first place. The package we consider today is also far better targeted than the package Congress enacted last year. What we are passing today includes provisions that are very important, more specifically to everyday people, to Montanans and to Minnesotans, to people all across the country. That is not to say that this legislation, in my judgment, is perfect. It is not. I think it has some quite significant shortcomings, but we are here today and this is a vote on the conference report. It is all or nothing and I frankly believe that the good in this bill significantly outweighs the bad. If I were drafting it, it would be quite a bit different than this legislation. But this is America, this is the legislative process, and it is a step forward and I will urge my colleagues to support it. The legislation the Senate passed to begin this conference provided refundable child tax credits to low-income working families. That was the original bill. This was a $3 billion to $4 billion problem. Last June, the Senate responded and paid for it. This week, 15 months later, the conference committee produced a $150 billion solution for that $3 billion problem and the conference committee chose not to pay for that $150 billion. I am concerned. The Congress appears incapable of enacting reasonable tax cuts without adding to the deficit. Higher deficits will hurt the very families whom we have set out to help. They are the ones acutely harmed by higher interest rates that huge deficits cause. It will be the children of middle-income American families, those we are directly helping today, who will pay for that deficit with higher taxes throughout their lifetime. That is the underlying problem with this legislation. Using this conference on a narrow, $3 billion problem to move a broad $150 billion tax bill is also an abuse of the Senate rules. Rule 28-- and this may be a little bit inside baseball but it is very important to achieve comity and to get legislation passed here--is a rule which may still appear in the printed rule book but the conference report makes clear that for all intents and purposes rule 28 regarding the scope of conference is now dead. The majority plainly observes rule 28 only in the breach. Let me take a moment to recount the history of this bill. It all started last year when the 2003 tax bill left out additional child tax credit payments for most low-income families with children. Last year's increase in the child tax credit left out fully one-quarter of Montana's children. It must be proportionately true in other parts of the country. In the weeks that followed passage of that bill, Senators Lincoln and Snowe championed efforts to provide relief for these hard-working families. Today, more than a year too late, we finally followed through on their efforts to provide additional child tax credit relief to those families who were left out. Again, a quarter of the children in my State were left out, and I bet that is about true around the country. Families who could only get a 10-percent refund can now get a 15- percent refund, as we have accelerated the increased child tax credit in this bill. The conference agreement makes another significant change benefiting families of military personnel serving in harm's way. Under current law, pay earned by our military in a combat zone does not count for purposes of calculating the earned income tax credit or the child tax credit. That is obviously an imperfection, to say the least, in the law. It is wrong. Our service men and women who are in harm's way should clearly not be discriminated against just because they happen to be fighting a war on our behalf. That is the case in the law and this bill partially but not entirely addresses it. It is the part that it does not fix that I will address later which I have a particular problem with. Last year, I joined my friend Senator Pryor in requesting a study to detail how this oversight affects our men and women in the military who are serving in some of the most dangerous locations in the world. What did the GAO find? It found that as many as 10,000 military personnel in combat zones will see a reduction or elimination of their child credit or earned-income tax credit. Why? Simply because they are serving abroad, in harm's way. I joined Senator Pryor in introducing legislation which is part of the agreement today essentially to correct that inequity. Unfortunately, the proposal today will still allow military families with combat pay to receive the earned-income tax credit for only 2 years, and then it goes away. Why? Why should that not be permanent? We tried last night to make it permanent, but unfortunately the conference would not agree. During conference negotiations--and I take my hat off to Senator Lincoln of Arkansas--Senator Lincoln offered an amendment with my support to make this provision permanent. Again, the conference committee rejected it on a party-line vote. I don't know why the conference committee chose to penalize those military personnel who are serving in Afghanistan, serving in Iraq, in other dangerous parts of the world. We should make sure they are not discriminated against. I do not understand it. It is the least, the very least we could do for them. We should correct this entirely, and we should take care of those soldiers and sailors who are taking care of us. I think we also all agree on our support for extending tax relief for middle-income taxpayers. That is clear. That is the basic reason I support the bill. The conference report does extend those tax provisions to the end of the decade. Basically there are three popular tax cuts on which many American families have come to rely: the $1,000 child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and the 10-percent income tax bracket. The conference report also, I might add, extends for another year protection from the heinous alternative minimum tax, otherwise known as AMT. What is it? It is basically the provision in the Code that says after you go through all your calculations and it turns out that you pay a very low income tax, American taxpayers--corporate taxpayers, too--have to go through another set of calculations that are a bit more onerous. Under the second, if the tax charge is higher than it would be in the regular calculations, they have to pay the higher amount. That is the AMT. It is beginning to kick in, as many Americans are beginning to realize, and it is going to be a much more difficult burden in the next couple or 3 years. Not next year, however. This bill extends relief from the AMT for next year. Without this, millions of middle-income taxpayers who thought they would be recipients of the benefits of these tax cuts would lose them. Why? Because of the AMT. We give with one hand tax relief in the 10-percent bracket and from the marriage penalty, but it would be taken away with the imposition of the AMT. So we say let's not let AMT do that for another year. Many of my colleagues also agree with me that we should not borrow to pay for these tax cuts, especially when other more fiscally responsible options are available. What are those? We now have a $300 billion tax gap based on 2001 figures. That is the latest date for which the IRS has made an honest, responsible calculation. What is the tax gap? That is the $311 billion in money that American taxpayers owe. It is due, but they are not paying it--$300 billion. That is the tax gap. It is huge. Just think how much easier it would be for this country to pay its bills, provide for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, homeland security, education, if every American paid his or her legitimate taxes that are owed and due. The IRS, unfortunately, does not have the personnel to solve this. There are lots of provisions in the law which allow, regrettably, taxpayers to take advantage of the Code. Clearly we should do something about that. I must say, I pressed the IRS in the committee, and I hope we finally get something done in the next couple of years. However, we have passed provisions several times which do address this tax gap. What are they? Anti tax shelter provisions. These are provisions suggested to the committee by the Joint Tax Committee on a bipartisan basis. They say, particularly to corporate taxpayers, if you do certain transactions, itemize these transactions, you have to list them on your return. You have to tell us you are doing these kinds of transactions so they are flagged and the IRS can better look at them. In addition, we say there should be an economic substance doctrine. That should be enacted. What is that? That is basically the doctrine that says to a judge, if you look at this, if the IRS looks at this and if a taxpayer, corporate taxpayer, is being hypertechnical following the law, but still it is clear there is no economic substance here, the IRS can then find the taxpayer should pay taxes on that transaction. There are certain Enron related tax provisions that this Senate has also passed. I asked those to be on this bill because they can pay for part of the extension of the middle-income tax cuts. They are good in their own right. These are loophole closers. These are provisions to close corporate loopholes, to somewhat significantly reduce that $300 billion tax gap. Yet that amendment was rejected by the conference committee, and I have no understanding why. I do not know why. I have just been told it can't be done. There is no legitimate reason. I challenged the committee for legitimate reasons. There were none. Yet we in the Congress today are adding to the deficit, we are adding to the debt with the passage of this legislation when we could have been at the same time enacting provisions to close corporate tax loopholes, loopholes that everybody agrees are loopholes. Joint Tax says it is a loophole. All commentators who look at this say it is a loophole. Yet this conference committee would not do something that is clearly the right thing to do. We should close those loopholes, reduce that tax gap, and reduce the deficit. This conference committee doesn't do that. It says: Oh, no, we should not close corporate loopholes. It says: Oh, no, we should not reduce the deficit. It says: Oh, no. Why? Don't know. There were no reasons given. Clearly, it is the wrong thing to do to not enact the provisions. I suggested that have already passed this Senate. They have already passed this Senate by a large margin, and still the conference says: No, we are not going to close corporate loopholes. That is wrong. I might add a further part of what I believe is good about this conference report. There is a simplification provision here that does simplify provisions of the Code. I don't have to tell you just how complicated the Code is. We all know. How does it simplify the Code? I will give one idea. It creates a uniform definition of a child in the Code. Today there are five separate definitions of a child in the Tax Code. They are all different. It just makes eminent sense that there will be one provision. It is a start. I am not standing here to say that we have significantly simplified the Tax Code. We are making a start here with a single, uniform definition of a child. If we could take a step forward, even--no pun intended; maybe a ``minor'' pun--even if it is a baby step forward, certainly we should take it. Another provision here, we also were able to continue certain provisions of the Tax Code which would otherwise expire. In the parlance here, they are called extenders. But for those who don't know what extenders are who may be listening, there are certain provisions in the Code which would expire, and most people agree they should not expire. So we say, OK, we are going to continue them. One of the most popular is the R&D tax credit. Frankly, it is foolish to extend that. I think it should be permanent. We should not be back year after year revisiting this issue. It is nuts. It is ridiculous. I also offered an amendment for a more expanded, a more realistic, a more honest research and development tax credit. What is that? Basically the provision we are extending is dated. It is based on data from 10 or 15 years ago. So companies today which have increased revenues but, say, 10 or 15 years ago were at a certain level of R&D expenditures now can't get the benefit of the R&D tax credit even if their sales are going up because their credit is based on the R&D they performed many years earlier. I am saying let's bring it up today so American companies can perform the research and invest in the research we need to do to compete with countries around the world. It could be a modest increase in this bill. It is very small--I think it is about $1 billion--not much at all, over 10 years, but that, too, was rejected for basically no reason. I didn't hear a reason. We have an obligation to start and continue to make America even more competitive. So many other countries give such a break to their companies for research and development in their own countries. Canada, for example, has a 20-percent credit. Other countries have much more than we have. We are just kind of sitting here as a Congress and not really getting off the dime, getting off the ball to address this issue. I am sorry that was not added in the conference report. Finally, the conference report does take what are called the technical corrections. Those are a long-overdue set of provisions. They are what they are described to be, dotting the i's and crossing the t's to correct minor mistakes, to simplify the Code by enacting corrections. Finally, I want to say I support the bill. It will make life better for millions of hard-working American families. That is the bottom line. But, also, I might add it continues to ignore our continuing and dire budget deficit. We may turn a blind eye to that problem today, but that deficit is going to haunt us in years to come. Mark my words. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. But I also strongly urge my colleagues to renew our resolve to address the budget failure that threatens our Nation. That is a challenge we can no longer simply avoid. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. I sing the chairman's praises so often he is probably getting used to it, but I was telling everyone what a great job the chairman did last night.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a part of this effort to improve significant tax relief for America's working families. I very much want to thank my good friend and colleague Chairman Chuck Grassley. As usual, he did a great job in the conference. He conducted an open and transparent conference at all times. He was very decent, very courteous, very fair. Sometimes it was difficult. Senator Lincoln and I were able to present some amendments and some ideas in an effort to improve the legislation. There was no resistance at all from the chairman. He was, again, gracious, top notch, transparent, very helpful, and I commend him.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to yield to the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Pryor. He is a real leader in protecting our Armed Services personnel. In fact, it was he who asked for a GAO report a year or two ago that would highlight and identify the problem which has led to some constructive provisions in this bill. It is a great honor to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, before I yield to my very good friend from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln, I would like to tell the Senate and those listening what a great job she has done, particularly in standing up for our military personnel overseas who have children and who are working men and women but whose incomes might not be as high as some others. She is a tiger. She is a stalwart. She is there. And because of her efforts, this bill is a lot further along in a way that does help military personnel, maybe not as much as we would like yet, but she is to be highly commended for her work. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this legislation would not have been possible without the help of many. I appreciate the cooperation we received from the Republican staff, especially Kolan Davis, Mark Prater, Dean Zerbe, Ed McClellan, Elizabeth Paris, Christy Mistr, John O'Neill and Adam Freed. I thank the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation for their service. I also thank my staff for their tireless effort and dedication, including Russ Sullivan, Patrick Heck, Bill Dauster, Matt Stokes, Matt Jones, Melissa Mueller, Matt Genasci, Anita Horn Rizek, Judy Miller, Jonathan Selib, Ryan Abraham and Wendy Carey. I also thank our dedicated fellows, Cuong Huynh, Scott Landes and Jeremy Sylestine. Finally, I thank our hardworking interns: Kelsie Eggensperger, Paige Lester, Priya Mahanti, Brittney McClary, Audrey Schultz and Mary Tuckerman. Mr. President, the real thanks here, frankly, goes to a lot of Montanans who I have consulted with on this bill, CPAs and tax practitioners with whom I have been talking, acting as a sounding board as to which provisions should be changed, for example, to make them work better. They have been invaluable assistants to me. I am very appreciative to know I can just pick up the phone and ask, What do you think of this? What do you think of that? Montana business men and women, other taxpayers and practitioners, I very much thank them for their great help. Real thanks really to the working men and women in my State and across the Nation. It is through their work and determination that our Nation has prospered. Of course, the group includes the wonderful men and women who serve in the military because they are the people who put their lives on the line. I am very grateful to them and am very humbled to be working for them. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays on the conference report.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the privileges of the floor be granted to the following fellows and interns of the Finance Committee for the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 1308, the Increased Child Tax Credit bill: Mary Tuckerman, Priya Mahanti, Audrey Schultz, Brittney McClary, Kelsie Eggensperger, Paige Lester, Jeremy Sylestine, Jodi George, Scott Landes, and Matt Stokes.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to speak on an issue that is vitally important. If there are any pending amendments, I ask unanimous consent that they be set aside.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3630

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I think the growing support indicates we should adopt this amendment. There may be a point of order raised. It would be a technicality. I hope if that is raised, Senators will vote to waive that point of order so we can help some people in America, farmers and ranchers in various States all around our country, who have suffered from drought disasters or, as in the case in North Dakota--it is very interesting--from flood disaster. It was very sad listening to Senator Conrad speak about North Dakota, how part of the State has been devastated by flooding, with 18 inches of rain in 1 day, if you can believe it. The average annual rainfall in the upper plains States is about 14 inches a year. They had 18 inches in 1 day. That is in one part of North Dakota. In another part of North Dakota, they have had the worst drought he has said he has seen in his lifetime. I might say, the condition is somewhat similar to that in Montana. Northeast Montana is getting a little more moisture than it usually gets, but southwest Montana is getting a lot less than it normally gets. It is hard to know where we are going to get drought and where we are not. But there is drought. We are asking to use the formulas that are in the law; that is, the Emergency Livestock Feed Program and the Crop Disaster Assistance Program. Let's use the formulas in the law. If they need disaster assistance, we should give it to them. In addition, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Murray as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. The more I speak, the more I am getting cosponsors. I ought to keep talking. They are coming in at a rate of about four a minute. With that, I urge Senators to support this legislation. trees

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator from New York for her support of the amendment, and I assure her that the Tree Assistance Program provision in my amendment is intended to cover eligible losses of trees, bushes and vines.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, very briefly, I heard two arguments from one Senator as to why this pending amendment, agricultural disaster assistance, should not pass. It is a very technical argument that it violates the Budget Act. I remind my colleagues, the unanimous consent agreement that applies to this bill, to this amendment basically says first-degree amendments are in order: First-degree amendments are in order, that they be related to the text of the bill, homeland security, and also natural disasters. This is a natural disaster amendment. It clearly is contemplated by the unanimous consent agreement. The argument was made: Not on this bill. That is clearly not an argument because the unanimous consent agreement clearly contemplates amendments that relate to natural disasters. So that argument is gone. That is wrong. The second argument was made: Gee, the cost violates the Budget Act. A very simple point I make is if one wants to press that argument, it also applies to disaster assistance for the State of Florida. Agricultural disaster assistance is the same as Florida hurricane disaster assistance under the Budget Act. They are the same. They are technically the same. There can be a point of order made against both. Sixty votes are required. I do not know whether the other side is going to make a point of order against the Florida hurricane disaster assistance. I frankly doubt it. I think it would be very unwise. The very same law, the Budget Act, applies to the pending amendment, which is the amendment providing for agricultural disaster assistance. I say to my colleagues, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We are Americans, and let's work together as Americans. Let's help people who need help, and those are our farmers, ranchers, and Floridians because of the hurricanes--all of us. I see no reason why a point of order should be made. And, second, if it is made, I see no reason why the point of order should be sustained. We are talking again about natural disasters that apply--this amendment does not apply to Florida, but it is tied with it because we are going to have that in the next several days. They are all the same. We are all in the same boat. I very much hope this does not become a partisan political measure. I do not think it is. I remind my colleagues of the bipartisan support of this amendment. Senator Brownback of Kansas is a cosponsor. Senator Burns, my colleague from Montana, is a cosponsor of this amendment. Senator Coleman from Minnesota told me an hour ago he wants to be a cosponsor of this amendment. Senator Roberts of Kansas is a cosponsor of this amendment. Senator Hagel of Nebraska is also a cosponsor of this amendment. I hope Senators can all work together. Let's help each other. Let us help people in various parts of our country, not only in Florida, but in other parts of America who are hurt very much by agricultural disasters. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I do not know what the chairman has in mind, but I hope whatever it is we can move rather quickly.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3607

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to read a list of supporters of the pending amendment which provides for emergency agricultural disaster assistance: the Alabama Farmers Federation, American Corn Growers Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, Georgia Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, Georgia Peanut Commission, National Association of Farmer Elected Committees, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Barley Growers Association, National Cotton Council, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Farmers Union, National Grain Sorghum Producers, National Milk Producers Federation, National Potato Council, National Sunflower Association, Southern Peanut Farmers Federation, U.S. Canola Association, USA Dry Pea & Lentil Council, USA Rice Federation, and Women Involved in Farm Economics. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, if consent is necessary, to add as cosponsors to the pending amendment Senator Coleman of Minnesota, Senator Dayton of Minnesota, and Senator Clinton of New York.

Mr. BAUCUS. I call up amendment No. 3636.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is a bipartisan amendment. My colleague from Montanam Mr. Burns, is a cosponsor of the amendment, along with Senators Roberts, Brownback, Hagel, Conrad, Dorgan, and Nelson from Nebraska. Maybe there will be more later. This amendment provides for emergency agricultural natural disaster assistance. Some might ask why I am offering this amendment, particularly on this bill. The answer is very simple. First of all, there is a tremendous need, a need in rural America to address drought agricultural disaster assistance. Just as there is a need in Florida because of the two hurricanes which have devastated that State, and a third potentially on its way, for agricultural disaster assistance, agricultural disasters from droughts in many parts of America are just as devastating. We don't hear about them as much because it is in the nature of a silent killer. They don't get on TV as much. It is over a period of time, for years. But the effect is just the same, if not worse, in many parts of our country. We are in America. We are an entire country. Just above the Presiding Officer is our national motto, ``e pluribus unum.'' Clearly, this is something of which we should all be reminded. We are many States, but we are one Nation, here to help each other--one indeed. Our amendment would fully fund the Crop Disaster Program, the Livestock Assistance Program, and the American Indian Livestock Feed Program for losses incurred in 2003 or 2004. The producer would have the option of deciding which of the 2 years he or she needs the assistance. I might point out that in 1996, the year before the major years of drought began, Montana sold $847 billion worth of wheat. Just a couple years ago, we sold only $366 million. That is a 43-percent decline. Why? Essentially because of drought. This devastation does not end at the front door of our rural homes. It is unrelenting and has taken an enormous economic toll on our communities as well as our farmers. It will take years to recover. Businesses are closing doors. Employees are being layed off in many parts of rural America as a consequence, and main streets are just drying up. Producers are considering selling parcels of land they own or pieces of equipment that they have in order to keep their operation going. They will do so only if they can keep the farm or the ranch that their family has been working on for, in many cases, generations, and scraping that money together has never been more difficult as most of the potential buyers are similarly in financial straits. So we are drying up in many parts of the country. It is all patchwork. It is not uniform. There are certain parts of the drought that even in certain parts of my State of Montana, you can tell from this map which indicates it is very dry. Some parts are more drought stricken than others. This bill is tailored to give help to those producers who are experiencing drought, who have a disaster, very little of their crop is left, and they would be compensated for only a portion of the loss. We have to act now. Some will say: Put this off to another bill. This is the Homeland Security bill. This is not an agricultural disaster assistance bill. That is a technical argument. The unanimous consent request states, and I will point it out to my colleagues, that first-degree amendments to this bill are in order related to the text of homeland security and natural disasters. This is a natural disaster amendment. This bill clearly contemplates amendments that address assistance to parts of the country that are experiencing natural disasters. You might hear, gee whiz, after all, we should wait until an agriculture bill comes up. We cannot do that. We know there are 3 weeks left before we are scheduled to adjourn. There is no time to wait. We know the big disaster bill comes up for Florida, and we know the pressure here for that to be a clean bill--don't add anything to it because it so accurately portrays the devastation in Florida, and there is going to be a rush to adjourn and they don't want any amendments, and that will happen. We are going to hear the argument to put it off until the supplemental or another bill. Well, you have to strike while the iron is hot here. You need to take advantage of your opportunities. This is needed now, not weeks from now. It is needed right now. Frankly, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. If we don't act now, we jeopardize assistance that farmers deserve, as well as the folks in Florida. I point out that we see hurricanes and tornadoes and ice storms and floods in the news; newspapers and television cover that. Those folks deserve help and we will give them help before we adjourn. We must also remember that an agricultural disaster such as drought is more of a silent killer; it is not as visible on TV screens, but the effect is just as bad, if not worse. You are going to hear, why doesn't the farm bill take care of all this? We know it is important to remind ourselves that disaster assistance is completely separate from funding in the farm bill. It is a totally different animal, a different phenomenon. The argument is also made that farmers and ranchers should be satisfied with the funding they will receive in the farm bill. The truth is, only 18 percent of the total funding in the farm bill goes directly to producers. The rest goes to food stamps, nutrition programs, et cetera. The farm bill is never intended to cover losses from natural disasters; it is economic losses, not natural disasters, as this amendment so provides. In the same way we use emergency funds to rebuild communities hurt by tornadoes and hurricanes, we should rebuild communities hurt by drought. We should not treat natural disasters differently and just pay attention to the ones that make the evening news. A disaster is a disaster. There is no reason a double standard should apply. We must not and cannot continue to ignore the impact of drought, the effect it has on our agricultural producers, and our rural communities. It is every bit as deserving of assistance. I repeat that it is just as important as small business owners in Florida or anybody else. Florida needs assistance and we will give them that. Those folks are hurting. But I might also say that parts of rural America need assistance and we should give them assistance because they are hurting just as much in some cases, if not worse. I will end there, just by saying this is bipartisan. We have just as many Republican cosponsors as Democratic cosponsors. It is not a political issue. This is meant to help people who really need help. With that, I yield the floor and urge my colleagues to take a good long hard look at this and not be--I am trying to use another word-- deceived by arguments that say this is just a Homeland Security bill. That is a technicality. The unanimous consent provides for natural disaster amendments to this bill. Second, there is no time to wait. That is why we are here. That is why we are elected, to do what is right. Somebody, who was wise, said to me: When you are going to do something, do it now, don't wait. Second, do it right the first time. Don't do it wrong the first time. I think if we are going to do it, we should do it now, do it right the first time; and the right way is a basic, simple amendment. We are not trying to take advantage of somebody or pad anybody's pockets. It is to help people who need help. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3617

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is quite an important amendment for our Nation's security. I think it will help strengthen a key component of our national security strategy. We all know our Nation's security begins here at home, by securing our land borders, our airspace, and also our maritime ports. As we work to get the latest explosive screening technology in our airports, or to inspect more containers arriving in our Nation's ports, we should not forget the critical role of our vast northern border. Contrary to what some people may think, out on the northern border we are no strangers to illegal crossings. The topography in my State of Montana makes it very difficult to protect our border. Customs and Border Patrol are doing a great job with the resources they have, but Immigration and Customs enforcement investigators are just a little bit undermanned. They share valuable information they collect on illegal entries with numerous agencies. But when it comes to tracking and intercepting unauthorized aircraft, our military planes fly much too high and too fast to provide proper service along our northern border. As we beef up our security on other borders, especially in the South and on the coasts, the northern border has become the Nation's backdoor that we cannot afford to leave unlocked. While I am pleased the Department of Homeland Security has just established the first of five planned airbases along the northern border that Congress authorized nearly 2 years ago, I am also quite concerned. Why? Because the pace is so slow in standing up these bases. One of the sites the Department of Homeland Security has chosen is in Great Falls, MT. Between Malmstrom Air Force Base, the Air Force National Guard at Great Falls International Airport, and the community that supports these assets, we are ready to take on this new mission. We are ready. We are set. We are happy. We are glad. We want to do it. The mission is to help secure the northern border, not just for our State of Montana but for all Americans. However, we are told we will have to wait. We will have to wait for more than 3 years to get the planned airbase up and running in Great Falls. With all due respect, I do not think as a nation we can wait. We cannot afford to wait. There are too many problems with the current funding schedule for the northern border air wing. First, the schedule is stretched out over far too long a period of several years. Once the first base in Bellingham, WA, is really up and running, what is going to happen? It is pretty obvious. Drug runners and other would-be terrorists and malcontents will simply move eastward toward Montana's northern border, and still further east over other parts of our northern border. Under the current funding schedule, they are going to enjoy a full 3 years of exploiting the gaps in our Air Wing coverage before all five bases along the northern border--that is, the States of Washington, Montana, North Dakota, Michigan, and New York--have been established. There is a second problem. What is that? It is that the budget allows just enough money to buy each base its requisite planes: two helicopters and a fixed-wing aircraft. But once each base opens its doors, it won't even be able to operate 5 days a week for 8 hours a day. The dollars just are not there for the operation. So I say, when it comes to securing our Nation, obviously, this is not good enough. We have to get up and running right away. Two months ago, when a plane deviated from its course over Washington, DC--we all remember it--the Air and Marine Operations Command and Control at March Air Force Base in Riverside, CA, was watching--way out in California. Local aircraft were dispatched, and the Capitol complex was emptied. Luckily, it was just the Governor of Kentucky. I should not say ``just.'' It was the eminent Governor of Kentucky. But the system worked because a local plane was available and staffed to respond. The folks in Riverside are responsible for detecting unauthorized aircraft flying at low altitudes anywhere in the United States, but so far they have just one plane, staffed barely 40 hours a week, in Washington State, to dispatch if they get a hit anywhere on the 3,000-plus-mile-long northern border. So let's be clear. Congress has already authorized the establishment of a northern border air wing with five airbases that will be responsible for tracking, identifying, and intercepting any unauthorized aircraft that attempts to cross the northern border into U.S. airspace. But if we are going to take securing the northern border seriously, then we must take funding seriously. So my amendment makes sure the funding is there to get all five airbases operational 7 days a week this next year. I thank very much the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Cochran, and thank Senator Byrd, and many others, for helping to work to get this crucial amendment in order so it will be adopted and, more importantly, to make America safer. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I spoke yesterday about the Morocco free- trade agreement and its benefits for both the United States and Morocco. I hope and expect that when we vote on the Morocco implementing bill, the bill will pass by an overwhelming margin. That is a fitting way to cap a busy month on trade and head into the summer recess. As I look back at the accomplishments on trade since the beginning of the year, I am pleased at how much we have done. It would be considered a full plate in any year, but in an election year, it is especially gratifying to have achieved so much. We passed the JOBS Bill, a complex tax measure that will help create jobs in America and bring the United States into compliance with the WTO. That bill passed the Senate overwhelmingly with 92 votes. We extended and enhanced an important trade and development program for Africa--the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act through a unanimous vote. We created a different trade and development program for Haiti, also through a unanimous vote. And of course, just last week, we passed the Australia free-trade agreement implementing bill with 80 votes. It has been a busy year. I am heartened by the strong votes all these measures attracted. No victory is ever easy. They are hard fought by people working every day to do the right thing. I want to congratulate Senator Grassley and his staff for their leadership, and Ambassador Zoellick and his excellent negotiating team for all their hard work. As I look ahead, there will be some difficult issues to confront. I believe we have more work to do to rebuild a strong consensus on trade. We could do better on both the substance of trade agreements and on the process of considering them. I also believe we should be devoting more of our resources toward enforcing trade agreements we already have. But today, I would like to focus on our successes on all we have already accomplished, and on what we are about to do. When we vote to approve the Morocco legislation, we will be solidifying our oldest diplomatic relationship in the world. We will be giving reform-minded governments in developing countries around the world incentive to redouble their efforts to modernize their economies. We will also be setting a new standard for agreements with developing countries in a variety of important areas. These include intellectual property, market access, and even agriculture. The Morocco agreement is a good agreement. I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to call my colleagues' attention to a very important matter--the safety of America's hospitals. This is an issue that affects every State and people of all political beliefs. In an effort to keep American hospitals safe and ensure they provide quality health care, Chairman Grassley and I are introducing the Medicare Hospital Accreditation Act of 2004, which is simultaneously being introduced by our colleagues in the House of Representatives. As I can attest through personal experience, America's hospitals provide outstanding health care. Every day, thousands of people receive the treatment they need from dedicated and highly competent hospital staffs working in well-run hospitals across the country. But confidence in our hospitals should not be confused with complacency. Every so often, someone from outside a hospital must come in to each facility and look under the hood, so to speak, to read through patient charts, check clinical practices and to make sure that sprinklers are working and stairways are sound. We have put our trust in accrediting organizations to identify problems in hospitals so that they may be corrected and quality and safety improved. Most hospitals are accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), which has been accrediting hospitals for over 50 years. When JCAHO accredits a hospital, that hospital is deemed to be in compliance with the conditions of participation for Medicare. As today's report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) shows us, JCAHO's record of identifying problems in hospitals is far from perfect. Furthermore, the GAO points out that government has little oversight authority over JCAHO's hospital accreditation process. Less oversight authority, in fact, compared to accrediting organizations for other kinds of healthcare facilities. While the GAO's findings are a reason for concern, the report does not mean that American hospitals are unsafe. But it does send a clear message--one that the Congress and the Administration should heed--that there is room for improvement in identifying problems at hospitals. Given my commitment to keep hospitals as safe as possible, I view the GAO's recommendations as a call to action. Therefore, I am pleased to join Chairman Grassley in introducing legislation to remove JCAHO's unique status as an accreditation body and to give the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) the same authority over JCAHO's hospital accreditation that it already has with respect to the accreditation of other healthcare facilities. Putting all accrediting organizations on equal footing will result in better accreditation and better healthcare facilities for everyone. Expanding oversight by CMS of JCAHO's hospital accreditation will help improve the process, keep patients safe and ensure that hospitals continue to perform to our expectations. The legislation we're introducing today is bipartisan and bicameral. I urge my colleagues to join us in co-sponsoring this bill and working together to get it passed.