Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, unless the Senator from Alabama wishes to proceed, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I consume. Clearly, to make welfare work, there has to be adequate childcare support. It is a no-brainer. I appreciate Senator Grassley's efforts to help improve this bill. I appreciate, therefore, even more the amendment offered by the Senators from Connecticut and Maine to provide for adequate childcare funding. I further appreciate the support of this amendment by the chairman of the committee, Senator Grassley. It is another example of his doing what is right. There are a lot of politics around here. Clearly, what is right is to make sure our kids get enough childcare support. There are 2 million children today who currently benefit from Federal childcare. Maintaining that current level will take $4.5 billion over the next 5 years. We also need another $1.5 billion just to cover the cost of the new work requirements in the Senate bill. In total, we need $5 billion more than this bill requires. Therefore, the amendment pending is one that must be passed. In Montana, more than 10,000 children receive childcare assistance, but that is only one-tenth of the number of children who are eligible for childcare assistance. I believe with passage of this amendment, we will be able to raise that one-tenth to a much higher level. I remember when I walked across the State of Montana, I met a lady who must have been 19, 20 years old, near Bozeman. She told me she was trying her level best, emphatically, to stay off welfare. She was a single mom. She had one child. She had a very low-paying job. She was a very adroit woman. She looked like she had a lot on the ball. But she was determined to stay off welfare. She slept on her parents' sofa so she didn't have to pay for a room, and someone else took care of her child during part of the day. But then she figured out that her childcare cost her 30 to 40 percent of her total wages. She couldn't do it. She was so upset that she had to go back on welfare. Why? Because the wages she was receiving were not enough and her childcare was costing way too much. Based upon that one example alone, I personally know how valuable this is. Childcare is critical to help keep people off of welfare, to help keep people working. It is an investment in our future. Who knows, some of these children might be future Nobel Prize winners, future inventors or poets or authors. These are our kids. It is a no-brainer for passage of the amendment. I urge a very large vote. How much time remains on our side?

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object, might I ask the Chair when we are scheduled to go back on the bill?

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about the pending amendment offered by the Senators from California and Massachusetts; namely, the minimum wage amendment. I would like to point out the effect of the current minimum wage on people today, and particularly as to where they are with respect to poverty in America. Let me refer to this chart. This chart represents the relationship between the minimum wage and the poverty line for a family of two, beginning in the year 1988, and up through the year 2002. From this chart you can see, quite visibly, frankly--with the minimum wage represented in green and the poverty line being the line just below the blue--that as the minimum wage increased in 1989, and in a step sort of function up to 1998, that for a person who had a job, with a family of two--let's say a single mom had a full-time job but made the minimum wage--they were still below the Federal poverty level, until about 1998, and then they could just barely surpass the poverty level. I point this out because it does not seem right that a person who has a full-time job at a minimum wage still lives in poverty. Now, that is bad enough. But let me show you how much worse it gets. This next chart shows the relationship between the minimum wage and poverty for a family of three: let's say a mom and dad and a child. By this chart one can tell very easily that the gap between the poverty line and the minimum wage is much greater for a family of three than it even is for a family of two. In fact, if I have my numbers correct, the amount is about $3,681. That is the gap. I point out, again, for a family of three, with one breadwinner--say with a father who is at the minimum wage--that family of three will find itself, on average, over a year's time, about $3,600 of income less than the Federal poverty level. That family is living in poverty even though the breadwinner of that family is working full time. And it gets worse, as you might expect. Let's take a family of four, say a father and a mother, and two children. Say one parent is working full time at a minimum wage job. Because the increase in the minimum wage has been so slow, the gap between what that family earns and the Federal poverty level is even greater. In fact, it is about twice as much, which means that a family of four with one wage earner at the minimum wage is earning about half of what the Federal poverty level is. I don't think that is right. I frankly don't understand why some people do not want a significant increase in the minimum wage. Let me tell you a personal story. Personal stories sometimes are out of context, but it meant a lot to me. One year I was walking across my State in Montana campaigning. To be honest, I learned an awful lot just by talking to people who I just happened to meet walking down the roads and highways and visiting in people's homes. A lot of it had to do with welfare. I remember talking to many people on welfare who told me they did not want to be on welfare. They hated it. They wanted to be off welfare. One of the main factors they mentioned to me as to why it is so difficult to get off of welfare is because of the minimum wage laws. They are working maybe at McDonald's or someplace else in a minimum wage job, but because the minimum wage rates were so low, they couldn't make ends meet. It is hard to know when to believe people. It is hard to know when to think what people say is right or not, but you have to read between the lines. You have to get a sense of what is going on. It was very clear to me that these people were speaking the truth, certainly as they perceived it. If there were a significant increase in their wages, they could then get off of welfare. It is tied to the earlier debate on childcare. I ran into a lot of women, single moms who said the same thing to me. They were really earnest. I wish you could have seen the expressions on their faces saying that they wanted to stay off of welfare. One young single mom explained to me that she slept on her mother's sofa so she could avoid having to pay for a room someplace. She had a minimum wage job. Her childcare expenses were so high she could not handle it anymore and she had to go back on to welfare. She hated it. In those few instances, people I talked to just by happenstance-- chance encounters--that is what they have said to me. We have to make judgments sometimes. One of the judgments I have made is that our current minimum wage is too low. For a civilized country, the United States of America, we can do a heck of a lot better. Sometimes you hear business people say it will increase their cost of business. It probably will slightly. But if everybody is getting paid more, more dollars flow into the economy. People are more likely to not be on welfare, and they are more likely to have a little more self- esteem. They are more likely to be able to advance themselves. Most people want to advance themselves. They want a better life for their families and their kids. Some just find themselves caught in difficult situations. I hope people will look at these charts and see how dramatic the difference is between the minimum wage income on the one hand and the Federal poverty level on the other. The income of someone on the minimum wage is much below the Federal poverty level. It does not seem right that a person working full time, whether he or she has one child, or is married, or whether he or she has three in the family or four, should live so far below the Federal poverty level. That is not right. If they are going to work full time, they should be able to live outside of poverty. I urge Senators to support the amendment offered by the Senator from California. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Massachusetts, who would like to speak on this amendment. I will be very brief. The chairman of the committee is a good friend of mine. We have worked very closely together on most legislation. This is one bill where we are not working together as closely because we have somewhat different points of view. I appreciate the chairman's view that this side of the aisle is attempting to drag things out a little bit. The fact is, our side is willing to have a vote on this amendment and on other amendments. We will enter time agreements. There is no attempt to delay at all. In fact, when I was sitting here yesterday I think the Senator from Massachusetts suggested 20 minutes for a time agreement. That is, he would agree to a vote in 20 minutes. I am not going to put words in the mouth of the good Senator as to how many minutes he would like in the time agreement now, but the point is we are willing to have votes and to vote very quickly on all these amendments. We are not holding up anything. It is also interesting to note when this welfare reform bill came up for debate in 1995, there were 40 recorded votes on the floor. I think we have had one thus far in the reauthorization debate. I think better legislation results when amendments are offered, when they are debated, and when they are voted on. This way, Senators can decide whether they want to vote for or against a particular amendment. The Senator from Iowa and myself work very closely, as I said. But I want to make the record clear that there is nobody on this side holding up passage of this bill in any way. We are willing to enter into time agreements on any amendments that may be offered. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to the following Finance Committee fellows and interns during consideration of H.R. 4, the welfare bill: Shannon Augare, Steve Beasley, Jane Bergeson, Diana Birkett, Simon Chabel, Jodi George, Tyson Hill, Scott Landes, Pascal Niedermann, Jeremy Seidlitz, Matt Stokes, and Trace Thaxton.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Abigail Kurland of Senator Dodd's staff be granted floor privileges during the consideration of H.R. 4.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in addition, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff members of Senator Grassley be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on H.R. 4: Trenton Norman, Jarret Heil, and Jill Gotts.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I begin by thanking the chairman of our committee, Senator Grassley. He has worked very long and hard on this issue, and it has been very good to work with him. He has thought a lot about these issues. He has worked hard to try to find a middle ground. He wants to get things done, and I deeply appreciate that. We are here today to reauthorize the 1996 welfare reform law. The 1996 law has actually worked pretty well. I think all commentators would agree with that statement. In fact, it has worked much better than people thought it would work. It is not broken. It is not broken at all. And I think we need to guard against ``fixing'' something that is not broken. You know the old saying: ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' I think that applies to the 1996 welfare statute. As we go forward, we might ask ourselves whether we might do better simply extending the existing 1996 law. Yes, we could make some modifications. We would increase, for example, funding for child care to help parents get to work. But as the Senate considers proposed changes, we might ask whether it would be better to stick with the 1996 act. I will spend a little time today talking about the House bill. The House bill does not stick with the 1996 bill. The House of Representatives has made, frankly, some pretty dramatic changes--``fixes'' to a program that many of us believe is not broken. The Senate bill that Chairman Grassley has crafted tries to chart a middle course. Thus, the bill before us presents an opportunity to reflect on the lessons we have learned since 1996, and to incorporate those lessons in the new bill. We accomplished what we set out to do in 1996, and I am proud to have played a role in passing that law. The 1996 welfare reform law was a landmark. The old system had failed. We were spending billions, but we had little to show for it. So we tried something new. We tried, in the words of the introduction to the 1996 act ``to end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage.'' At the same time, the 1996 act was very controversial. In retrospect, it is clear that by and large we were headed in the right direction. I call attention to the chart next to me. This chart essentially tells the story. It is entitled ``Welfare Recipients as a Percentage of Population.'' Hundreds of thousands of people have left welfare and left welfare for work. The number of folks on welfare, as you can tell, as a percentage of the American population, beginning in 1988, rose up to its peak in about 1994 and 1995. Then we passed the 1996 statute, and it has plummeted dramatically. The next chart shows the changes in welfare recipient caseloads, from 1996 to 2001. It shows that all States have shared in the success. The caseload reduction has been highest for those States in red, that is greater than a 70-percent reduction. In States represented by orange, the reduction in welfare caseload has been between 50 and 70 percent. And States represented in yellow have a caseload reduction of less than 50 percent but very significant. My State of Montana is an orange State. Montana reduced its welfare caseload by 56 percent between 1996 and 2001. The New York Times reported last week that even with the weak economy we have experienced lately, welfare rolls have declined in the past 3 years in most States. That is, caseloads have decreased even as unemployment, poverty, and the number of food stamp recipients have increased. For example, in the State of Illinois, the number of families on welfare fell 45 percent since January 2001. In New York, the number of families on welfare declined about 40 percent since January of 2001. And in Texas, the number of families on welfare has declined 11 percent, again, in the last 3 years. I would like now to show another chart. This is the child poverty rate. The child poverty rate has also declined since 1996, overall by about 23 percent. As you can see, the child poverty rate in 1988 was roughly 20 percent. It increased during the 1990s, through 1992, and peaked around 1993. It has declined very significantly since that peak in 1993. However, look at the end, 2000 to 2002. It looks as though it is starting to increase slightly. But despite our success, there is still more to be done. We are not out of the woods. Too many troubled families remain on the rolls. Too many families struggle to raise children in poverty. In 2002, there were 34.6 million Americans below the official poverty level. For a family of two, poverty is $12,490. 34.6 million Americans below that level. Thirty-seven percent of families in poverty are working. I have another chart. This is the poverty rate. As this chart shows, 1 in 10 Americans still live in poverty. That share has gone up in the last couple years with the recession, and close to 17 percent of our children live in poverty. In Montana, 19 percent of all children live in poverty. Nationwide, 1 in 10 Americans. Those numbers are simply too high. We must provide better opportunities for poor families to move off welfare, into the workforce, and out of poverty for good. As successful as the 1996 bill has been, these figures show there is more we have to do. In my view, doing more means focusing more attention on the hardest cases; that is, on families who face complicated and difficult challenges. For example, children with disabilities, adults with little or no education or work skills, people with mental health issues or substance abuse problems. Those are the hardest cases. We also need to focus on the single mother with an autistic son who cannot care for himself after school when she is at work. We need to focus on families affected by mental health concerns that limit their ability to engage in continuous full-time employment, and families who have been hit by a health crisis and need help. Doing more means building on the partnership we established with the States back in 1996. It means letting States maintain the flexibility they have used to design their current successful welfare-to-work strategies. How does it best work for each State? All States are different, with different populations, different issues. It means giving States new options to address especially troubled families. And at the same time, it means maintaining and increasing help in building the work support system. We learned, with the major reform in 1996, that getting a job is not always a ticket out of poverty. We helped to get people off the welfare rolls by a dramatic amount, an average of about 50 percent, but still people who leave are having a very tough time finding jobs. They are in very dire straits. People find that the jobs pay too little. In Montana, we have the highest number of people working more than one job just to make ends meet because we have low wages and a poor economy. Those families who are just off of welfare are struggling. They need access to education, to training. They need the opportunity to address many of the barriers that prevent them from getting a job and keeping a job, and they need access to benefits such as food stamps, health care, and child care. Child care is a huge concern. If you want to make a lasting difference, we need to provide further help with child care, further help with health care, transportation, and other things that will help parents stay off welfare and thrive in the job market. The success of the 1996 bill should have meant a quick and simple reauthorization, because we all, both sides, can agree that the law works. But some want to leave the successful 1996 law behind them and make dramatic changes. I call this a cut-and-run approach--leaving the States and, more importantly, low-income families behind. The House- passed welfare reauthorization bill embodies this cut-and-run attitude. The House bill would force States to use expensive workfare--or ``make work''--models of welfare reform, where welfare recipients would participate in large-scale, unpaid, make-work programs such as cleaning up trash. The House bill work requirements would force States to put welfare recipients into make-work jobs. I mentioned trash pickup. There are many other examples. Cleaning the streets is good for the streets, but where does it leave the welfare recipient after the cleanup is over? At the end of a make-work job, welfare recipients have learned no new skills, and they are no closer to having a real job. The House bill would push recipients into make-work programs instead of real private sector jobs that provide the meaningful work experience necessary to survive in the job market. States mostly rejected this one-size-fits-all workfare model years ago. States don't like it. They know it doesn't work. State and local administrators have told us they need, more than anything else, a full menu of strategies for the different needs of individual parents, families, and communities. The House bill, however, makes it harder to design services and strategies that meet local needs. And it also fails to provide adequate funding. As welfare rolls have fallen, States have used freed-up TANF funds to support low-income working families--often those who have left welfare to work in recent years. This is common sense and a proven strategy for success. It works. For a single mother, providing child care assistance can be the single most important factor for workplace success. But the lack of funding in the House-passed bill means States would have little choice but to shift funds away from programs that help keep low-income parents working to much more expensive make-work programs for those still on welfare. This would be a mistake, as it would force working families to return to the welfare rolls. It would mean cutting and running on those working families whose success we have been celebrating. It doesn't make sense to abandon work supports to pay for make-work activities, but States report that the approach in the House bill would do just that: it would require States to cut funding for these successful work support services to pay for large, expensive, and unproven make-work programs for those remaining on the rolls. Education and training clearly are critical factors in getting people into jobs that pay more. In a rural State such as Montana, access to education and training represents a clear path out of poverty. We need to ensure that America's needy families have access to such paths. And States need flexibility so they can provide these programs. All States are different. In States such as mine, making welfare reform work means making it work for American Indians. More than a quarter of American Indians live in poverty--more than twice the national average. In Montana, American Indians make up a full one-half of our welfare caseload. We needed flexibility to address that. I appreciate that the chairman has included provisions to help Native Americans. But to make a real difference for welfare reform in Indian country will require real resources. Tribes need support to operate TANF for themselves and help with economic development. Our work is not done when there are still places in America where most adults don't have jobs. Flexibility must be maintained. Back in 1996, we asked the States to design a welfare program to address their specific needs. Some States applied for waivers to do just that. Those waivers have been a vital aspect to welfare reform's success. It is important to allow States to continue with their waivers and to ensure States continue to have flexibility to make welfare reform work. Dictating prescriptive requirements and unfunded mandates to States is unnecessary, particularly when so many parents are already participating in work-related activities. In sum, the House bill is sure to undermine the success of the 1996 law. It would effectively eliminate the ability of States to employ proven welfare-to-work strategies, and it would virtually wipe out the progress made in the last 6 years to use TANF and child care funds to ``make work pay.'' The House approach would force States to divert dollars to make-work programs. It would thus divert funds from child care, where funds are needed. Future funding for child care and other work supports would be harder than ever to secure. It seems to me that the House program is designed to fail. The House approach is difficult for would-be recipients to access. And States will have a hard time making it work. In the prophetic words of one TANF administrator: [The House approach] is part of a larger effort . . . to set unattainable goals for States, so that Washington can generate budget savings and say that social programs don't work. That would be irresponsible. That would be breaking something that is fixed. Whatever we do here, we need to ensure that TANF continues to work. I applaud Chairman Grassley for trying to do better. Compared with the House-passed bill, chairman's bill has fewer mandates and less need for States to adopt workfare programs, which I find so reprehensible in the House-passed bill. Yet I remain concerned that the bill before us doesn't provide States with enough new flexibility in areas such as training and education, or in determining welfare-to-work strategies, particularly in States with specific needs like rural States. I am also concerned that it doesn't provide enough child care funding. During this debate, Senators will offer amendments to address these shortcomings. An amendment will be offered to increase child care funding so that parents can go to work. Senators Snowe and Dodd will offer that amendment today. I believe the chairman already has offered that amendment on behalf of Senators Snowe and Dodd. An amendment will be offered on this bill that will allow recipients to continue their education to gain job skills. Senators Levin and Jeffords will offer that amendment. Amendments will be offered making TANF work for immigrants. Senators Graham and Clinton will focus their efforts on these initiatives. Also, an amendment will seek to preserve the flexibility that States had under the 1996 law. Senators Bingaman and Wyden will be offering that one. Of course, we should also protect the civil rights of workers and of children in this law. We should make sure to get the balance right between State incentives and accountability. Welfare reform is working. Let's build on that success and build on our partnership with States. By continuing to work together, we can achieve a successful bill. We can strengthen existing programs to address the needs of America's struggling families. We can give further support to those who have successfully moved from welfare to work. Let us not cut and run. Let us not ``fix'' what is not broken. Rather, let us build on the success of the 1996 law. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to the amendment offered by Senators Dodd and Snowe on childcare.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I oppose cloture at this point, and let me explain why. This is an important bill--a bill that would help to create and keep good manufacturing jobs in America. We need to move on this bill. Senator Harkin has offered an amendment about the quality of jobs in America and he deserves to get a vote. On a major bill like this, Senators deserve a full and fair opportunity to offer and get votes on amendments. We should allow that process to continue. The effect of the cloture motion is simple: It would block a vote on the Harkin amendment--at least for now. I do not believe the Senate should prevent such a vote. For one thing, blocking a vote on the Harkin amendment would be only a temporary measure. The Senator from Iowa has made it abundantly clear that he will be back. The majority cannot avoid this vote forever. When something will happen sooner or later, sometimes the better course of action is to address it straight on, not sweep it under the rug. So I will oppose cloture and vote against cloture to allow the Senate to get to a vote on the Harkin amendment. If, as I expect, the Senate fails to invoke cloture, I urge the majority leader to stay on the bill. If the Senate fails to invoke cloture, I will work with other Senators to reach an agreement limiting amendments to a reasonable number. I believe, for example, that Senator Harkin is amenable to a short time agreement himself. We have been in discussions with a number of Senators attempting to schedule consideration of their amendments. Many Senators would be willing to enter into very reasonable time agreements. For example, Senators Dorgan and Mikulski have an amendment on runaway plants; Senators Breaux and Feinstein have an amendment to modify the repatriation agreement; Senator Kennedy has an amendment to strike an international provision and use the money to expand the manufacturing deduction; Senator Hollings has an amendment on the international provisions. I believe each of these Senators would enter into workable time agreements. We will have other amendments than these, but not many. The number of amendments to this bill is not vast. We have accommodated many Senators in the managers' substitute. If the Senate can work through the Harkin overtime amendment, we could handle the remaining amendments expeditiously. I urge the majority leader to join in pursuing that course I have outlined and working with us to bring this bill to completion by the end of the week. Once again, it is important that we do so. We need to respond to the European Union's sanctions. And we need to do what we can to help create and keep jobs in America. We need to pass this bill. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally against both sides.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I reinforce the words of Senator Reid. We want this bill passed. This is a jobs bill. This bill provides a tax break for the domestic manufacturing industry. An overwhelming majority of Senators on both sides support this bill. Actually, this bill is being held up at this point because the other side of the aisle doesn't want to vote on the Harkin amendment. That amendment is a very simple amendment. It is to maintain a current overtime provision, which clearly is related to jobs in America. Senator Harkin will agree to a time agreement. At the same time, Senator Grassley and I have worked with other Senators to bring the list down to a manageable number. I have talked to Senators during the vote and we have all agreed to time limitations on their amendments. I call upon the majority to let us proceed with the bill, with a vote on the Harkin amendment, and let us proceed with votes on the legitimate amendments we have pared it down to, which is very manageable. We can proceed. That is what is happening. Our side would like to continue to work on the bill and get votes on important amendments. I hope the other side agrees to let us vote on that amendment. I think we can get the bill passed this week. We can show the European Union we are taking action on the WTO ruling. Also, we can show the other body we are moving quickly. The other body is not moving as fast as I believe it should be. For those reasons, I urge us to reach an agreement and let's get on with the usual way the Senate operates--with amendments we can deal with very expeditiously.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend, the chairman of the committee, for his remarks. I am quite hopeful, frankly, that we can reach an agreement fairly quickly so that we can move on this bill. At the present moment, we are at an impasse with the cloture motion filed, and the amendment tree is filled up. I expect it is the wish of the majority to eventually avoid a vote on the amendment offered by Senator Harkin. I believe Senator Harkin deserves a vote. I believe the vast majority of Senators on both sides of the aisle would like to move quickly on this legislation--reach agreement on a number of amendments that would be in order so we can move quickly. Based on my conversations with Senators and with the leadership, I have every expectation that we can reach that agreement quite soon-- hopefully, this afternoon. This is the Senate. Every Senator deserves an opportunity to offer his or her amendments. We also have to reach agreements. We have to pass legislation. It requires compromise. I do believe we will reach that agreement which, necessarily, will be the result of compromise, fairly quickly. I urge Senators to push their interests, as they should, but push them in a way where we can get an agreement to pass this legislation. I hope we will do that this afternoon. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, let me take a few moments to review where we are on this legislation. First, I don't want to sound melodramatic but this is an important bill. This bill would help to create and keep good manufacturing jobs where they should be; that is, in America. We need to move this bill. The Senate conducted 3 days of debate on the bill, one of them a Monday without rollcall votes, and this is our fourth day on the bill. In that time, we might say, the Senate has considered and adopted a good number of amendments. Let me just list them. We have adopted, first, the managers' amendment on leasing shelters; the managers' amendment making modifications to the revenue provisions; the committee substitute. We have also adopted the Bingaman amendment to expand the research credit; the Hatch-Murray amendment to extend the research and development credit. We have further adopted the McConnell amendment to protect American workers; the McCain amendment on defense; the Dodd amendment to protect American workers; the Bayh amendment to extend expiring provisions; the Bunning amendment to extend the net operating loss carryover provision; and the Bunning-Stabenow amendment to accelerate the phase-in of the manufacturing deduction. That is quite a bit. A lot of legislation adopted, amendments passed already. Now, under the previous order, Senator Harkin has offered his amendment on the Department of Labor's overtime regulations and that is the pending first-degree amendment. Regrettably, in my view, the assistant majority leader offered a motion to recommit the bill and filed cloture on that motion to recommit. This morning the majority filled that amendment tree by offering a couple of secondary amendments. There may come a time, after full and fair debate and amendment on the bill, when I would support a motion to cut off debate. But under the current circumstances, I will oppose that cloture motion. This is a bill about jobs, about quality jobs here in America. Senator Harkin's amendment is also about the quality of jobs in America. This is not some amendment out of left field. The Senator from Iowa is not trying to change the subject, for example, to gun control or Medicare or reproductive choice, but rather he is staying on the subject. He is talking about jobs. His amendment, although relevant, may not be strictly germane within the meaning of that term in Senate procedure. The effect of this cloture motion, if adopted, would be to block a vote on the Harkin amendment. I will not be a party to that effort. On a major bill such as this one, Senators deserve a full and fair opportunity to offer and get votes on amendments. We should allow that process to continue. Even though this cloture motion has brought the Senate to something of an impasse, I remain hopeful. I am hopeful because I believe after the Senate recognizes that the votes are not there to block the Harkin amendment, the Senate can then reach an agreement limiting amendments to the bill to a reasonable number. I believe we can then work through this bill and bring it to completion by the end of the week. It is important that we do so. We need to respond to the European Union's sanctions, sanctions that impose a harmful tax on dozens of American products. Most importantly, we need to do what we can to help to create and keep jobs in America. I urge a prompt vote on the Harkin amendment, that we reach an agreement limiting amendments to a reasonable number, and then move on to complete this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Montana Mineral Exchange Act with Senators Burns and Campbell. This bill will enable the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and eastern Montana to create jobs and provide a shot in the arm for a local economy that has been creative in forging its own destiny. The Montana Mineral Exchange Act is the result of years of working together. President Geri Small has been a true advocate for the Northern Cheyenne Tribe as she has worked tirelessly on this project for years. The Montana Mineral Exchange Act is a positive step forward in creating good-paying jobs and boosting economic development in Montana. This shows what Montana can do when we--the congressional delegation, the governor's office, the private sector, and the Northern Cheyenne-- work together to develop our resources while creating jobs and protecting our quality of life. Development of this high-quality coal will allow Montana to move forward economically and compete with other energy producing states for jobs and market share. I'm glad I could work together with Governor Martz, Senator Burns, Congressman Rehberg, Senator Campbell and all of the parties involved to make this bill happen.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Montana Mineral Exchange Act with Senators Burns and Campbell. This bill will enable the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and eastern Montana to create jobs and provide a shot in the arm for a local economy that has been creative in forging its own destiny. The Montana Mineral Exchange Act is the result of years of working together. President Geri Small has been a true advocate for the Northern Cheyenne Tribe as she has worked tirelessly on this project for years. The Montana Mineral Exchange Act is a positive step forward in creating good-paying jobs and boosting economic development in Montana. This shows what Montana can do when we--the congressional delegation, the governor's office, the private sector, and the Northern Cheyenne-- work together to develop our resources while creating jobs and protecting our quality of life. Development of this high-quality coal will allow Montana to move forward economically and compete with other energy producing states for jobs and market share. I'm glad I could work together with Governor Martz, Senator Burns, Congressman Rehberg, Senator Campbell and all of the parties involved to make this bill happen.

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, this afternoon we resume consideration of the JOBS bill. The chairman of the committee, Senator Grassley, is on his way over. I thought I would proceed to make sure we do not have any dead time. While the Senate went off this bill and considered the budget just a week ago, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new job figures for February. Those data show 8.2 million people are still unemployed. That is more than 2 million more than at the beginning of the recession in March 2001. Job growth remains too slow. As this chart shows, we have lost more than 3 million private sector jobs since December 2000, and job creation has not turned around. This next chart shows jobs lost--2.2 million jobs lost; overall total employment, 3 million jobs lost from January 2001 to February 2004; 3 million lost in the private sector during that same period. It was almost 3 million, 2.8 million lost in the manufacturing sector. The economy created just 20,000 new jobs in February. The private sector created no new jobs last month. All the net new jobs came from the Government. Let me repeat that. There were no new private sector jobs created last month. Yet there were 20,000 new jobs overall, and all those jobs were Government jobs. That is not something I think we want to do. This next chart shows manufacturing jobs. It is very interesting to see that in the years 1950, 1960, 1970, all the way up to the year 2000, this dotted line shows that today, 2004, we have the fewest jobs in America in half a century. That is the fewest jobs in half a century. Stated another way, the number of jobs we have now is as low as it was a half century ago. Manufacturing jobs declined for the 43rd straight month. Mr. President, 3,000 manufacturing jobs disappeared in February. Manufacturing employment is at its lowest point in more than a half century, since March of 1950. Again, that is what this chart shows. The job level now is as low as it was a half century ago. Part of the story is that the American manufacturing worker has become more productive. The average manufacturing worker has turned out more product than before. But it goes deeper than that. Manufacturing production--that is the output of manufacturing jobs--remains below the levels of the beginning of 2001. There is reason for continued concern about the future. A week ago, Goldman Sachs reviewed the latest manufacturing data and concluded: [W]e interpret Monday's decline in the New York Fed's Empire Survey for March as one more piece of evidence that the manufacturing sector is transitioning to somewhat slower growth. . . . This next chart shows the share of population with jobs. That is, we reached our peak in about the year 2000 of the percentage of American population that had jobs, and we can tell by the chart that whereas it has been steadily rising in percentage of Americans who have jobs from 1994, steadily rising up to the beginning of the recession in March 2001, we have declined precipitously since that date. In sum, the jobs picture remains sluggish. Even the normally taciturn Federal Reserve noted the weak job market in saying in a recent statement last Tuesday that ``hiring has lagged.'' The latest Labor Department numbers show total unemployment fell in February to 138.3 million. The share of the population age 16 and older with jobs declined to 62.2 percent. This employment population ratio is lower than it was at any time between March 1994 and June 2003. Again, that is in the chart as I just indicated. The slow job market spans the Nation. As of January 2004, nearly 3 years after the recession began, almost every region of the country continues to have higher unemployment than in March 2001. Forty-five States have higher unemployment rates than when the recession began. In terms of unemployment, my State of Montana has fared better than some, but unemployment remains markedly higher than pre-recession levels throughout much of the country. Colorado unemployment is up 2.8 percent. Again, if we look at the chart, every State has higher unemployment, as indicated by red, but for three States. One is the State of Montana, where it is level. In two States, Nevada and South Dakota, unemployment has actually declined. In every other State, unemployment has increased at a very marked rate. Again, as I said, Colorado is up 2.8 percent; Ohio is up 2.6 percent; Massachusetts up 2.6 percent; Oregon up 2.4 percent; New York up 2.3 percent; Texas is up 2.1 percent; and New Jersey is also up 2 percent. The list goes on. In terms of the absolute number of jobs, 36 States have failed to get back to the pre-recession employment levels. In 49 States, job creation has not kept up with natural growth in the number of potential workers. Only in Alaska has job growth exceeded the growth of working age population. The news of the Nation's slow job growth has cycled back to lessened consumer demand, and thus economic growth. This chart shows consumer confidence. As we can see beginning in 1994, consumer confidence in America remained at about the 95 percent level. This is the consumer confidence index, based in the hundreds, so it was a little lower in 1994 to 1996. It steadily rose from 1997 to 1998. Those are the boom years. It reached its peak roughly at the beginning of the recession in March of 2001, and then just plummeted to its low levels. Why is that important? It is important because, as I have mentioned, the Nation's slow job growth has cycled back. It has cycled back to lessened consumer demand. When consumer demand is down, economic growth also falls off as well. In the latest consumer confidence survey, confidence fell for the second straight month in part because of consumer concern over the weak job market. Nearly 3 years after the start of the recession, consumer confidence remains below its January 2001 levels. These numbers of people without jobs are not just statistics; they are real lives. These are real lives we are talking about. This weak job picture causes real pain. It causes disruption in many families. For example, there is a fellow named John in East Helena, MT, who has worked 22 years at the ASARCO smelter plant that has recently closed. John suffers permanent health problems from working with chemicals at the plant. He has been unable to get full-time employment so he works part time. John cannot get health insurance because he has preexisting health conditions. Then there is Bruce. Bruce is 50 years old. He worked 28 years at that same East Helena smelter. He did what they say to do; that is, use retraining benefits and train as a computer technician. Unable to get work in that field, he works now full time in a grocery store. Often when a person loses a job, a family loses a job. Evelyn from western Montana wrote: I am concerned about the economy of Western Montana. . . . I see that industry . . . is [waning]. What do we have to offer our children and grandchildren in the way of stability within Montana? . . . What do you propose . . . [to give us] a hope of being able to support our families? Kim wrote about her husband's job: The second paper mill my spouse has worked at in three years is threatened with closure in the next six to twelve months. In a letter to the employees . . . in Missoula, Montana[,] the company president blamed the endless drain of manufacturing America to overseas as the cause for possible shut-down. [The company] makes liner-board, the cardboard boxes products are shipped in. [I]f products are not made in the United States, boxes are not needed. . . . [T]he liner- board market is a direct reflection of the state of the economy[,] because the more liner-board boxes sold[,] the more products being manufactured within the United States . . . Real people like John, Bruce, Evelyn, and Kim are the reason we need to move this bill. We need to fight to create and keep good manufacturing jobs in America. The bill before us provides a 9-percent deduction for manufacturing, effectively reducing the tax rate for domestic manufacturers by 3 percentage points. The JOBS Act will thus help all manufacturers produce goods in the United States. Cutting taxes for domestic manufacturers will help prevent layoffs and will help preserve jobs. It is the right thing to do. We got a good start in this bill the week before the budget resolution. The Senate agreed to the managers' amendment that among other things ended some outrageous leasing tax shelters, and the Senate unanimously extended the R&D tax credit. We expanded that credit for universities and labs. We also conducted a good and spirited debate on an amendment by Senator Dodd. That amendment addressed the performance of Government contracts by American workers. After working collaboratively on modifications proposed by Senator McConnell and Senator McCain, the Senate agreed to that amendment by a vote of 70 to 26. The Senate then began debate on an amendment proposed by Senators Bunning and Stabenow to accelerate the phase-in of the manufacturing tax cuts. The Senate also began considering an amendment by Senator Bayh providing for an extension of expiring tax provisions. These last two important amendments are now pending. Under a previous order, the next first-degree amendment in order will be that offered by the minority leader or his designee. We understand the amendment will be proposed by Senator Harkin regarding the Department of Labor's overtime regulations. I know there are strong feelings on this amendment, but Senators are all now aware that we must address that issue in order to move this bill along. I hope we can come up to a vote on that amendment in a reasonably short period of time and move to other amendments. In the end--and I will keep returning to this theme--this bill is about jobs, good jobs, about jobs in America. We are trying to help preserve American manufacturing. The task ahead of us is large, the challenge great, but Americans do not shrink from that challenge. Renee, the bookkeeping manager for a small manufacturer in Bozeman, MT, said it well when she wrote: The United States is a nation built on steely determination in the face of overwhelming odds. We must act now to reverse the loss of our high-skill, high wage manufacturing jobs. That is our job, and we need to do that. We need to get this bill done for John, Bruce, Kim, and Evelyn and all the hardworking Americans who depend on a strong manufacturing sector in America. We cannot let them down. Let us move on to the bill, let us move on to amendments and let's address them. Let's move this bill and let us do what we can to strengthen American manufacturing. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I take a couple of moments to discuss the pending second-degree amendment, the amendment offered by the Senator from Indiana, Senator Bayh. It is an excellent amendment. It is somewhat broad in scope. I commend Senator Bayh for suggesting this. My guess is it will be adopted without too much difficulty. I have been pushing for a long time, and I know the chairman of the committee has, as well, the package of extenders. We have crafted the underlying JOBS bill to create jobs and to stimulate competitiveness in American business. In addition to the new provisions in the bill, it is critical we renew our past commitments in the Tax Code and not leave anyone behind. I am talking about the so-called package of tax extenders. We failed last year to extend many expired or expiring tax provisions that are essential. We now have another chance. That is the amendment offered by the Senator from Indiana, not only to extend these provisions, but also to improve upon them. When we were last on the bill, the Senate acted to improve one of the provisions, the research and development tax credit. This was the first of many positive steps we need to take to fix an ailing economy. Encouraging research and development clearly is one of the most important forward looking actions we could take. Why is that so important? It is the underlying basis for improving innovation and for addressing the offshoring of American jobs. In addition, there are many other provisions commonly referred to as extenders. They all address the needs of our Nation. These are not contentious. They are not partisan. Rather, they are provisions that just make good sense. The chairman and I pushed to have these same provisions extended last year. We urged our colleagues not to wait until the last minute before these provisions were expired. We wanted to move right away. These provisions are like a yo-yo. We enact them. We extend them for several months, sometimes a year or a year and a half, we let them expire. After they have expired, sometimes we go back and reenact them retroactively and there is no break. Sometimes we do not reenact them retroactively. It is very poor policy. I personally believe all these provisions should be enacted permanently into the Tax Code. We should not have the on-again, off- again, up-and-down, yo-yo effect Congress has undertaken in addressing these provisions. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we are not making these permanent. Nevertheless, they are not, and taxpayers have suffered often from lapsed provisions. We have let them down. I hope we do not do that again. The time has now come to extend these provisions. If we do not act now, there is no telling when our next opportunity will be. In this package there are many good provisions that have already expired. They are widely supported. The expiring provisions include a diverse array of topics and all are important. One of the most important expiring provisions we must address is the one allowing for the carryback of net operating losses, otherwise known as NOLs. In the wake of prolonged economic downturn and the recent ruling by the WTO, it is very important we give American businesses a chance to recover their losses. Like the underlying JOBS bill, this provision also promotes economic growth. Two other important provisions are the work opportunity tax credit, sometimes known as WOTC, and the welfare-to-work tax credit. I have worked long and hard with many of my colleagues--especially Senator Santorum, Senator Bayh; both Senators worked very hard--for the provisions to make the credits permanent. Unfortunately, we cannot achieve permanence at this point, but neither can we afford to let this opportunity pass. The work opportunity tax credit and the welfare-to-work tax credit are proven initiatives that help economically disadvantaged workers get jobs. They help those receiving the welfare check to earn a paycheck. That is very important. These provisions very much help get people off welfare and to get jobs. Both of the credits expired in 2003 in December. As we consider ways to create jobs for Americans, it is only appropriate to consider what these tax credits have done for both employees and employers across our country. In a recent study, it is shown in New York State the work opportunity tax credit generates economic benefits that exceed the cost of the program. These programs are too valuable to fall by the wayside. This amendment, including the extenders, will simplify and strengthen the credits to expand unemployment opportunities for disadvantaged individuals and attract more employers to participate in the program. Along with these are other provisions that help raise the standard of living in America now and in the future. Individual credits against the alternative minimum tax provide for such things as lifetime learning credit, the HOPE scholarship, and care for the elderly and disabled. These provisions not only create incentives for education but also help families build a stronger financial base. Other benefits to be gained from this important extenders package include encouraging computer contributions to schools, economic recovery provisions in the wake of September 11, deductions for school teachers, and energy incentives for the environment. And the list goes on. These tax incentives make America a better place, a better place for jobs, education, health care, environment, and more. Now is the time to act. We must not let these essential parts of our Tax Code fall by the wayside. I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment offered by the Senator from Indiana, Senator Bayh, and others. Like the JOBS bill itself, these provisions will help make important contributions to American business and to American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, a fundamental feature of any income tax system is the ability to use losses to reduce taxable gains. If a company has gross income of $100,000 and losses of $50,000, we don't force the company to pay tax on $100,000--they only pay tax on net income. But just as a company can have gross income and losses within the same year, a company can also have income in one year and losses in the next. Letting companies ``carry-back'' their losses to prior years smooths things out and helps companies deal with the hardships of the business cycle. And it is important to be able to carry losses back. Carrying losses forward doesn't give taxpayers a boost when they need it. Carrying losses forward only gives them a boost after things have already turned around. Many businesses have been in hard times for the last 3 or 4 years. Giving them a 1- or a 2-year NOL carryback doesn't help them--because they don't have any profits in the last few years. For many of these companies, the last year they were profitable was 1999 or even earlier. These companies will be able to use a 5-year NOL carryback to help them turn things around. I urge you to support this amendment, to help get our economy going again. For example, the timber industry in Montana and many parts of the Northwest was profitable in the late 1990s. But many of these timber companies--both large and small--have fallen on hard times in the last few years. The terrorist attacks of 9/11, the economic downturn, and the wildfires of last summer have taken their toll on these timber companies. These companies paid large tax bills when things were going well. But how that they are struggling they can't get any of those taxes back. If they had a smoother, more consistent pattern of earnings, they would have paid less tax over the course of the last 5 years. Instead, the boom-bust cycle that has actually played out is giving them higher tax bills overall. This NOL provision will ensure that these timber companies--and many other companies in cyclical industries--pay an appropriate amount of tax over time. It will give them a boost in those unprofitable years when they need it most.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicaid and CHIP Safety Net Preservation Act, a bill to clarify existing law and to preserve the core elements of Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, (CHIP), and our health care safety net, which provide needed health services to more than sixty million Americans. These programs, which are so critical to the health of our children, our parents and grandparents, and to our communities, have been threatened in recent years by waivers that undermine the very foundations of these programs. I am introducing this bill with my colleague, good friend, and the Ranking Member of the Finance Committee's Subcommittee on Health, Senator Rockefeller. I have long been concerned about the inappropriate use of the so- called ``Section 1115'' waiver authority with respect to Medicaid and CHIP. Section 1115 of the Social Security Act permits the Secretary of HHS to waive provisions of the Medicaid and CHIP statutes at the request of a state if the waiver is determined to ``promote the Objectives'' of the program, and if it meets certain other criteria established in statute. The waiver authority has existed since before Medicaid's inception, and it is designed to allow states before Medicaid's inception, and it is designed to allow states to experiment and engage in pilot and demonstration programs in a variety of Social Security Act programs. It has long been used to allow States to try innovative approaches to deliver or finance healthcare for some of our most vulnerable citizens--poor children, pregnant women and parents, individuals with disabilities, and the elderly, including many in nursing homes. But in recent years, the waiver authority has been used increasingly aggressively and, in my view, irresponsibly. I first became concerned about these waivers when I learned that waiver programs, which now affect millions of people and tens of billions of dollars annually, were being negotiated and approved in the dark. In some cases, Medicaid enrollees literally could not find what the operative Medicaid rules were in their state, because laws and rules had been waived and the new program requirements were not published in a place accessible to the public. In 2001, I and my colleague, Chairman Chuck Grassley, wrote to Secretary Thompson with our concerns that the waiver process was not adequately transparent, and that there could be no accountability without transparency. After many months and much correspondence with Secretary Thompson, I noticed some improvement in the posting of approved waiver applications. By that time, the General Accounting Office had reported that there were serious problems with 1115 waivers. Waivers were being approved without adequate public input; waivers were being approved that used funds set aside by Congress for children's health care on childless adults; and waiver applications were being negotiated and approved with different standards applied, depending on the identity of the state applicant. Finally, and most disturbing, the GAO noted that HHS was applying a condition to one type of waiver that imposed a hard cap on Federal spending for a state's elderly Medicaid enrollees over a five-year period. Most recently, I was deeply disturbed to read press reports indicating that HHS was inviting states to prepare new more comprehensive waiver applications that would impose enforceable, global caps on state Medicaid programs. One of the crucial elements of the Medicaid program is its unique state-federal financing structure, which requires every state dollar expended on Medicaid to be matched by at least one Federal dollar. This guaranteed matching structure provides financial stability and an incentive for states to maintain levels of health care spending in good and bad economic times. The matching structure has, over time, allowed a swift response to economic recessions, high rates of uninsurance, epidemics, disasters like 9/11, and innovative treatment advances, like the advent of expensive protease inhibitors to threat AIDS. The law does not, and it should not, allow a Secretarial waiver of such a core element of Medicaid. Another press report indicated that one governor intended to seek a waiver to the Medicaid entitlement in exchange for accepting a hard cap on Federal Medicaid spending. In the absence of the individual entitlement, a state could turn away eligible applicants; impose waiting lists; or terminate a health care benefit in the middle of treatment for a serious illness or a stay in a nursing home. For the poor, for children, for individuals with disabilities, such as ``innovation'' in Medicaid could be devastating. I also heard reported an instance where HHS announced in court, for the very first time, that the Secretary has waived the essential ``EPSDT'' benefit for children in one state. Beneficiaries did not even know that they were no longer entitled to the comprehensive benefit for children until they were in litigation with the State over inadequacies in the state's Medicaid program. And finally, I am concerned about efforts to undermine Medicaid financing for Community Health Clinics and Rural Health Clinics through the use of the 1115 waiver authority. These clinics provide desperately needed care for Medicaid and CHIP enrollees as well as millions of uninsured Americans. Without fair payment from Medicaid, CHCs and RHCs have reduced capacity to see the patients who rely on them for care. There are some features of the Medicaid program that are so fundamental to the program that they should never be waived with the stroke of the pen of one person. And I am pleased to quote the new Administrator of the Centers on Medicare and Medicaid Services, Mark McClellan, who agreed at his nomination hearing that, and I quote from a news article citing his testimony, ``federally imposed caps on spending are not envisioned as part of Medicaid's structure.'' He also said that core Medicaid principles, such as the program's state and federal funding partnership and citizens' entitlement to benefits, should not be waived. I am hopeful that, one day in the not too distant future, the Congress can have a meaningful debate on how to improve the Medicaid program that is now a healthcare lifeline for more than 50 million people, and how to improve CHIP and expand coverage to the uninsured. But in the meantime, we must ensure that efforts to innovate through waivers are made publicly and openly, with an opportunity for stakeholder input at every level of decision making, and with a promise that innovation will ``do no harm'' to the foundational principles of these safety net programs. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill, which will improve the integrity of Medicaid and CHIP and ensure that they remain available and responsive to the needs of so many Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, securing this nation's borders and keeping Americans safe from terrorist threats is of the utmost importance to this body. That is why I support the men and women who serve this country. Thousands of men and women are currently deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts of the world. We count on so many of these brave men and women to protect our communities at a moment's notice and for that, too, we thank them. We want them to come home safe to their families, and to find good jobs and good healthcare waiting for them. The State of Montana, known affectionately for its ``big sky'' and small population, plays a key role in protecting this nation. At the core of this country's national defense is the ICBM program maintained by Malmstrom Air Force Base. This program must be fully modernized and I support Malmstrom's mission 100 percent. Montana also shoulders a unique responsibility to protect this nation due to the 600-mile land border--the equivalent distance of Washington, DC, to Chicago--we share with Canada. This border is porous and topographically diverse and it constitutes the front line in the war on terrorism. We have to make sure we not only have enough agents at the border, but that we get them the equipment and technology they need to secure Montana's borders, and to head off any threats directed toward populations and infrastructure anywhere else in the country. Though not every state has an international land border it must secure, every state has the sacred duty to protect the people who call it home. In the past 2\1/2\ years, the states, with federal assistance, have made strides in emergency planning and terrorism preparedness. We need to give our first responders the training, equipment, personnel and resources that they need. But we're not there yet and we've got to stay the course. That's why I joined 22 of my colleagues in the Senate in urging the Budget Committee to find a way to restore $1 billion dollars to the State Homeland Security Grant program that was cut from the fiscal year 2005 budget. Montana's first responders rely almost entirely on this assistance for their terrorism preparedness efforts. But that's not enough. We need to make sure that our state and local law enforcement get the funding they need if we expect them to protect our communities and prevent the threat of terrorism. How can we expect our communities to fight the war on terrorism if we aren't willing to fund it well enough to win? The same people who prepare for the unthinkable terrorist plot must also plan for nature's devastation, which our state knows all too well. These brave people serve their communities and their nation without regard for the risks they take. We ought to be thanking them. We ought to get them the personnel and resources they need and I am committed to finding the way to do that. The money needs to be there for coordinated communications for state, local and federal agencies, for fire fighters and emergency managers, so that they can save time and save lives in the event of any disaster we'd rather not imagine. Security in Montana is more than knowing our borders and communities are protected. It is also knowing that our children are receiving the top notch education we have come to expect. Montana schools have made do with too little for too long. It is access to affordable health care. Unfortunately, access to health care remains a challenge for many, particularly Native Americans and Veterans. It is critical that the necessary resources are provided in Indian Health Services and Veterans Administration. Unfortunatley, it is commonplace for Native Americans seeking care from Indian Health Service to be denied essential services that most of us simply take for granted. This is a problem. I believe we also owe it to our veterans to better attend to their medical needs. Surely the greatest nation in the world should be able to keep their promise to the veterans who have fought for and protected our nation. There are many challenges that face us now. By working together, we will make America stronger. This week throughout the Senate's debate on the budget several very good amendments, including several on issues I just mentioned, were offered that I, unfortunately, could not support. I do not believe that we need to roll back tax relief that Congress enacted in 2001 to fund this amendment. I supported those 2001 tax cuts. Congress enacted them in a time of massive surpluses. Returning some of those surpluses to the taxpayer was the right thing to do. We can find other offsets to pay for the spending in this amendment. Offsets like the closing of corporate tax shelters currently pending in the JOBS bill come readily to mind. Before we start rolling back the tax relief that we enacted in 2001, we should ensure that we have taken all reasonable steps to obtain revenues through closing down abusive tax shelters. I shall look forward to working with my colleagues to find other offsets for their amendments--offsets that as much as possible avoid rolling back the tax relief that we enacted in 2001.