Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Would the Senator also agree that it is the case that most of these countries probably want to enjoy the status or the prestige of having a free trade agreement with the United States? Certainly we are not going to negotiate an agreement that gives away the store. This is a bargain for an exchange. Is it not also true that it therefore is a mistake for the United States to in effect be negotiating against itself; that is, for some in the administration to say, no, we do not want those labor standards, we do not want those environmental standards, whereas in truth those countries, frankly, are the ones we should be talking with because they themselves want these agreements and would be much more willing to agree to them?

Mr. BAUCUS. The point being that the other countries themselves are much less concerned about this.

Mr. BAUCUS. Exactly.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Trade Adjustment Assistance Equity for Service Workers Act. Since 1962, Trade Adjustment Assistance--what we call ``TAA''--has provided retraining, income support, and other benefits so that workers who lose their jobs due to trade can make a new start. The rationale for TAA is simple. When our government pursues trade liberalization, we create benefits for the economy as a whole. But there is always some dislocation from trade. As President Kennedy said, ``those injured by . . . trade competition should not be required to bear the full brunt of the impact.'' ``There is an obligation,'' he said, for the Federal Government ``to render assistance to those who suffer as a result of national trade policy.'' We meet that obligation through TAA. The TAA program has not been static over time. Several times, Congress has revised the program to meet new economic realities. In 1993, for example, Congress created a new TAA program targeted specifically at workers who might suffer dislocation as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Most recently, in the Trade Act of 2002, Congress completed the most comprehensive overhaul and expansion of the TAA program since its inception. We expanded the program to cover workers affected by shifts in production, secondary workers, and farmers, ranchers, and fishermen. We extended income support to permit workers to complete needed training. We added wage insurance and other incentives to employers to promote on-the-job training. And we added a health insurance tax credit, so that workers don't need to choose between needed retraining and health care for their families. I am very proud to have played a leading role in passing this landmark legislation. But I am also the first to admit that our work is not done. Economic realities continue to change, and TAA must continue to change with them. One fundamental aspect of TAA that has remained unchanged since 1962 is its focus on manufacturing. We only give TAA benefits to workers who make things. That means that the 80 percent or more of American workers in the service sector cannot access this program. Excluding service workers from TAA may have made sense in 1962, when most non-farm jobs were in manufacturing and most services were not traded across national borders. But today, most U.S. jobs are in the service sector. And the market for many services is becoming just as global as the market for manufactured goods. In 2001, the service sector accounted for 81 percent of U.S. private sector gross domestic product and a similar percentage of total U.S. employment. Although trade in goods continues to dominate, cross-border services trade rose to 21 percent of the total value of U.S. trade in 2001. Trade in services is a net plus for the U.S. economy. In fact, the service sector generated a trade surplus of nearly $74 billion in 2001. Just as we have seen with trade in manufactured goods, however, trade in services will inevitably cost some workers their jobs. Indeed, there have been some well-publicized examples in the papers. Software design. Technical support. Accounting and tax preparation services. Just recently, a group of call center workers in Kalispell, Montana saw their jobs move to Canada. Examples abound of service-sector jobs--even high tech service jobs-- relocating overseas. Over the past three years, somewhere between a quarter and a half million service jobs have moved to other--mainly low-wage--countries. The legislation that I am introducing today is a simple matter of equity. When a factory relocates to another country, those workers are eligible for TAA. When a call center moves to another country, those workers are not eligible for TAA. But they should be. And under this legislation they will. This bill provides TAA benefits to three categories of trade-impacted service workers: First, it covers workers who lose their jobs due to competition from imported services. For example, if a U.S. truck driver loses his job because his employer loses routes to a Mexican-domiciled trucking company, the U.S. driver would be eligible for TAA. Second, it covers workers who lose their jobs when a service facility relocates overseas as, for example, in the case of a call center or software design operation. These workers would be eligible if their employer opens an overseas facility, or--as is often the case--if the employer contracts out the jobs to a foreign service provider. This ``offshoring'' eligibility would apply to both private and public sector service workers whose jobs relocate overseas. Third, the bill covers secondary service workers. Secondary workers are those who provide inputs to a primary firm where the workers are eligible for TAA. Right now, workers who make parts for manufactured products are covered if they lose their jobs when the primary firm closes. But workers who supply services to a TAA-eligible firm do not. This bill corrects that inequity. The benefits service workers will receive under this legislation would be exactly the same as those that trade-impacted manufacturing workers now receive. They include retraining, income support, job search and relocation allowances, and the health insurance tax credit. The bill also expands the TAA for Firms program to cover services. The TAA for Firms program provides technical assistance to mostly small and medium-sized businesses that face layoffs due to import competition. The program helps firms become more competitive so they can retain and expand employment. As with TAA for workers, there is no reason to exclude businesses that provide services from this program. Hard-working American service workers deserve this safety net. Despite what some opponents of TAA suggest, no worker would choose to lose his job so he can qualify for TAA. These benefits will always be second best to a job. But they can really make a difference in helping workers make a new start. It is also critical to note that TAA can make an important difference in public attitudes. Surveys show that most Americans feel a lot more comfortable with globalization and with trade agreements when they know they will get help if their jobs are threatened. That's why 66 percent of Americans responding to a recent poll agreed with the following statement: ``I favor free trade, and I believe that it is necessary for the government to have programs to help workers who lose their jobs.'' The world is changing and TAA must keep up with the times. This bill will help our government to keep its promise to the American people to make trade work for everyone. I want to thank my colleagues who have joined me in co-sponsoring this important legislation, particularly Senator Coleman. I've also been working closely with Members in the House, including Representatives Smith, Holden, Inslee, Rangel, and Levin. I know they share my interest in seeing this bill move quickly through the legislative process and I thank them for their support. I plan to work hard this year to move this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Trade Adjustment Assistance Equity for Service Workers Act. Since 1962, Trade Adjustment Assistance--what we call ``TAA''--has provided retraining, income support, and other benefits so that workers who lose their jobs due to trade can make a new start. The rationale for TAA is simple. When our government pursues trade liberalization, we create benefits for the economy as a whole. But there is always some dislocation from trade. As President Kennedy said, ``those injured by . . . trade competition should not be required to bear the full brunt of the impact.'' ``There is an obligation,'' he said, for the Federal Government ``to render assistance to those who suffer as a result of national trade policy.'' We meet that obligation through TAA. The TAA program has not been static over time. Several times, Congress has revised the program to meet new economic realities. In 1993, for example, Congress created a new TAA program targeted specifically at workers who might suffer dislocation as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Most recently, in the Trade Act of 2002, Congress completed the most comprehensive overhaul and expansion of the TAA program since its inception. We expanded the program to cover workers affected by shifts in production, secondary workers, and farmers, ranchers, and fishermen. We extended income support to permit workers to complete needed training. We added wage insurance and other incentives to employers to promote on-the-job training. And we added a health insurance tax credit, so that workers don't need to choose between needed retraining and health care for their families. I am very proud to have played a leading role in passing this landmark legislation. But I am also the first to admit that our work is not done. Economic realities continue to change, and TAA must continue to change with them. One fundamental aspect of TAA that has remained unchanged since 1962 is its focus on manufacturing. We only give TAA benefits to workers who make things. That means that the 80 percent or more of American workers in the service sector cannot access this program. Excluding service workers from TAA may have made sense in 1962, when most non-farm jobs were in manufacturing and most services were not traded across national borders. But today, most U.S. jobs are in the service sector. And the market for many services is becoming just as global as the market for manufactured goods. In 2001, the service sector accounted for 81 percent of U.S. private sector gross domestic product and a similar percentage of total U.S. employment. Although trade in goods continues to dominate, cross-border services trade rose to 21 percent of the total value of U.S. trade in 2001. Trade in services is a net plus for the U.S. economy. In fact, the service sector generated a trade surplus of nearly $74 billion in 2001. Just as we have seen with trade in manufactured goods, however, trade in services will inevitably cost some workers their jobs. Indeed, there have been some well-publicized examples in the papers. Software design. Technical support. Accounting and tax preparation services. Just recently, a group of call center workers in Kalispell, Montana saw their jobs move to Canada. Examples abound of service-sector jobs--even high tech service jobs-- relocating overseas. Over the past three years, somewhere between a quarter and a half million service jobs have moved to other--mainly low-wage--countries. The legislation that I am introducing today is a simple matter of equity. When a factory relocates to another country, those workers are eligible for TAA. When a call center moves to another country, those workers are not eligible for TAA. But they should be. And under this legislation they will. This bill provides TAA benefits to three categories of trade-impacted service workers: First, it covers workers who lose their jobs due to competition from imported services. For example, if a U.S. truck driver loses his job because his employer loses routes to a Mexican-domiciled trucking company, the U.S. driver would be eligible for TAA. Second, it covers workers who lose their jobs when a service facility relocates overseas as, for example, in the case of a call center or software design operation. These workers would be eligible if their employer opens an overseas facility, or--as is often the case--if the employer contracts out the jobs to a foreign service provider. This ``offshoring'' eligibility would apply to both private and public sector service workers whose jobs relocate overseas. Third, the bill covers secondary service workers. Secondary workers are those who provide inputs to a primary firm where the workers are eligible for TAA. Right now, workers who make parts for manufactured products are covered if they lose their jobs when the primary firm closes. But workers who supply services to a TAA-eligible firm do not. This bill corrects that inequity. The benefits service workers will receive under this legislation would be exactly the same as those that trade-impacted manufacturing workers now receive. They include retraining, income support, job search and relocation allowances, and the health insurance tax credit. The bill also expands the TAA for Firms program to cover services. The TAA for Firms program provides technical assistance to mostly small and medium-sized businesses that face layoffs due to import competition. The program helps firms become more competitive so they can retain and expand employment. As with TAA for workers, there is no reason to exclude businesses that provide services from this program. Hard-working American service workers deserve this safety net. Despite what some opponents of TAA suggest, no worker would choose to lose his job so he can qualify for TAA. These benefits will always be second best to a job. But they can really make a difference in helping workers make a new start. It is also critical to note that TAA can make an important difference in public attitudes. Surveys show that most Americans feel a lot more comfortable with globalization and with trade agreements when they know they will get help if their jobs are threatened. That's why 66 percent of Americans responding to a recent poll agreed with the following statement: ``I favor free trade, and I believe that it is necessary for the government to have programs to help workers who lose their jobs.'' The world is changing and TAA must keep up with the times. This bill will help our government to keep its promise to the American people to make trade work for everyone. I want to thank my colleagues who have joined me in co-sponsoring this important legislation, particularly Senator Coleman. I've also been working closely with Members in the House, including Representatives Smith, Holden, Inslee, Rangel, and Levin. I know they share my interest in seeing this bill move quickly through the legislative process and I thank them for their support. I plan to work hard this year to move this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I concur with the statement of the chairman of the Finance Committee, and I, too, pledge to continue working to address the concerns of my colleagues from Oklahoma and North Dakota.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have today asked my colleagues to support the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This important legislation has strong support from both sides of the aisle with more than 50 cosponsors on the original bill, S. 659. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the bill. I thank my dear friend and colleague from Idaho, Senator Larry Craig, for his leadership. He has done yeoman's work on this bill in the drafting, introduction, and shepherding of this bill as it passes on the Senate floor. The legislation in question will correct a significant injustice that threatens the viability of a lawful United States industry, the firearms industry. An increasing number of lawsuits are being filed against the firearms industry seeking damages for wrongs committed by not them but by third persons who misuse the industry's products. These lawsuits seek to impose liability on lawful businesses for the actions of people the industry has absolutely no control over. When one stops to think about it, it is really outrageous. Businesses that comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and that produce a product fit for an intended lawful purpose, including elk and duck hunting, target shooting and personal protection, should not be subject to frivolous lawsuits that have only one goal; that is, to put them out of business. It is an outrage. Montanans particularly are proud of their independence and their outdoor heritage. We are an outdoor people. People in our State, as in the State of the occupant of the Chair, almost honor and cherish the outdoors. We spend so much of our time outdoors. Almost every Montanan regards himself or herself as an outdoorsperson. Hunting, fishing, hiking, even one's job, whether it is raising cattle, growing wheat, grain, the mining industry, forest products--we are outdoors people. We cherish our right to hunt. We cherish our right to fish and enjoy the outdoors. Passing this bill will allow us to protect that right by ensuring the firearms industry stays in business. Gun owners and sportsmen are an important part of our Nation's economy. Each year they spend nearly $21 billion in our national economy. This in turn generates more than 366,000 jobs. Those jobs pay more than $8.8 billion in wages and salaries. That is no small item, particularly these days when we are trying to get as many jobs in our country, particularly good-paying jobs. The industry also provides about $1.2 billion in State tax revenues. In addition, excise taxes imposed on firearms in the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Act, otherwise known as the Pittman-Robertson Act, generate revenues for State fish and wildlife conservation efforts, and also hunter safety programs. For example, the Pittman-Robertson Act generated more than $150 million in revenue in the year 2002 alone. In short, the U.S. firearms industry serves America's gun owners and sportsmen well. It provides good-paying jobs. It provides revenues that benefit all Americans. The industry should not be penalized for legally producing or selling a product that functions as designed and intended, but that is exactly what certain groups are trying to do--asking the courts to step in and micromanage the firearms industry when the Congress and most State legislatures have refused to do so. Let me now list some of the demands that have been made in these lawsuits so we can get a flavor and a picture of just how incredible these lawsuits are. Some would require a one-gun-a-month purchase restriction not required by a State law. That is a one-gun-a-month restriction. Other of these suits would require firearm manufacturers and distributors to participate in a court-ordered study of lawful demand for firearms and, get this, cease sales in excess of lawful demand. Another request is to require a prohibition on sales to dealers who do not stock at least $250,000 in inventory. And here is still another: require systematic monitoring of dealers' practices by manufacturers and distributors. These are just a few of the sweeping demands made in the lawsuits the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act seeks to stop. As my colleagues can tell, these suits are asking courts to step well outside their jurisdiction and legislate regulation of the firearms industry. They also have nothing to do with holding accountable those who actually misuse firearms or commit crimes with firearms. Most courts have dismissed such lawsuits. Some courts have expressed sentiments similar to those of a New York appellate court judge who stated: The plain fact is that courts are the least suited, least equipped and thus the least appropriate branch of government to regulate and micromanage the manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sale of handguns. However, the time, expense, and effort that goes into defending those nuisance suits is a significant drain on the firearms industry costing jobs and millions of dollars, increasing business and operating costs and threatening to put a good number of dealers and manufacturers out of business. That is why this bill is so necessary. Let me be clear about a couple of points, though. This bill will not bar legitimate suits against the firearms industry. It preserves the right of Americans to have their day in court. For example, this bill will not require dismissal of a lawsuit if a member of the industry breaks the law; if a member of the industry acts negligently in supplying a firearm to a person they should have known is likely to misuse that firearm. In addition, it does not require dismissal of a lawsuit if a member of the industry supplies a firearm to someone they had reason to know was barred by Federal law from owning a firearm or designed a defective firearm. So there are safeguards in this bill. This bill is only intended to protect law-abiding members of the firearm industry from nuisance suits that have no basis in current law, and again are only intended to regulate the industry, harass the industry, or put it out of business, none of which are appropriate purposes of a lawsuit. That is what this legislation is intended to deal with. We can all agree when a firearm is used in a criminal or careless manner that causes serious injury, such as the loss of life, this is a terrible tragedy. Those responsible for such tragedies should be held accountable, clearly, and held accountable to the fullest extent of the law in both civil and criminal actions. This includes the firearms industry, obviously, when or if one of its members breaks the law or gives a firearm to a criminal or other person they knew would use the firearm to hurt, kill, or threaten another person. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act would do nothing to change this or shield the firearms industry from liability or criminal or other wrongdoing. At the same time, it is not fair and it is not right to hold lawful members of the industry, who produce a legal product, accountable for the independent actions of third parties who use a firearm in the manner the industry never intended. This is a very simple bill. It has a simple purpose. It is also critically important to a very vital industry and I ask my colleagues to give it their full support. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Saints.

Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate that. It is the Carroll College Fighting Saints. I might say the University of Montana has won AA national championships a couple of times in the last several years, too. We love football in Montana. I think--I know as much as people in Oklahoma love football, with the Sooners and the great history Oklahoma has had in football. I might say, too, although the game was magical--it is always magical when you win--magic really did not play a large part in the Fighting Saints' victory. It was just good old-fashioned hard work and teamwork. Coach Van Diest is one very special guy, a Montanan, a real basic down- to-Earth guy who inspires such teamwork, just working together, hard work, making sure nobody takes credit for anything. This is a team game. We all work together to get this done. When you meet the coach and see the team practice with him, it is very apparent. They are very humble. That is why we were very worried about this game with Oklahoma. We don't take anything for granted. I am so proud of the team. It is hard work on the football field. It is hard work in the weight room. It is hard work in the classroom. These are great guys, led by a group of very honorable young men through a solid season and an incredible string of 12 playoff games. Mike was one of five coaches to receive the American Football Coaches Association Coach of the Year award, one of five in the Nation, because he is such an inspirational, hard-working, no-nonsense, wonderful guy, representing the high caliber of the team and of Carroll College. We are extremely proud. I might say, too, I am proud because this is my hometown. The Saints are from a college in Helena, MT. I thank the Saints, thank Coach Van Diest, thank them all for their hard work. We may give Oklahoma a few points the next time we play them. We wish them well, too.

Mr. BAUCUS. Saints generally prevail.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Carroll College Fighting Saints and to congratulate them on their second consecutive NAIA National Championship. The Fighting Saints won their second straight NAIA National Championship by defeating Northwestern Oklahoma State University Rangers. And what was the score? 41 to 28. We were very worried what kind of game this was going to be, and I was just elated when we broke the game open early and just kept the feet to the fire of the other team and we won by a large margin.

Mr. BAUCUS. To the Senator from Oklahoma, I am sure this is a very sensitive topic for him and I would be glad to yield to the Senator.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I concur with the statement of the Chairman of theh Finance Committee, and pledge to continue working to address the concerns of my colleagues from Oklahoma and North Dakota. Transit funding for Michigan

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Nevada. I think he is one of the best Senators in this body and I think his statement indicates--if one reads between the lines, listens to the music--why.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in my view--and I think it is the view of the vast majority of the Members of the Senate and probably the majority of Americans--this highway legislation is critical. It needs passing immediately. It is critical because our country so much depends upon our highways. The past highway legislation spent a good amount of money to help repair our roads, provide for new roads, bridges, and safety. We know the importance of our infrastructure system. This bill expired. We are now in an extension period. Because it expired, we desperately need to pass replacement legislation. It is also a jobs bill. This is a no-brainer. If we have lost--and nobody disputes this figure--a couple to 3 million jobs in this country in the last couple of years, we need to pass a bill that creates and provides jobs. That is a highway bill. It does not take much brain power to figure that one out. I urge our colleagues to get on with it and pass highway legislation. We should not let perfection be the enemy of the good. There may be one or two points--and they are not big points--that individual Senators may want to have in this bill, but we should not let that get in the way. We should pass this legislation. There are some Senators who say, oh, my gosh, this breaks the bank; it spends too much money. Respectfully, our President has suggested this is too expensive and spends too much money. There is even talk of a potential veto. Well, I doubt seriously that the President of the United States is going to veto this jobs bill. It just is not going to happen. First, the President has not vetoed any bill in his Presidency--none. I doubt that his first veto would be the highway bill, a jobs bill. Also, importantly, this bill does not increase the debt. It does not increase the deficit. All of the revenue that will be spent for highways is already paid for, except for a small portion of general revenue that goes to pay for a portion of mass transit, but that was in the budget resolution, and the budget resolution with respect to highways does not increase our debt. I urge my colleagues to think very carefully about that because for those who say it breaks the bank, that is just not accurate. This bill does not do that. I might say, in my State of Montana, this is our jobs bill, this is our economic development bill. This creates and maintains about 17,000 jobs in our State. We are a highway State. We do not have a lot of people in our State compared to others and we have great distances to travel, but we would like to have a highway program that enables us to get around in our State. That is probably true for all of these folks from all around the country who come and visit Montana. They like to be able to travel on roads that do not have potholes. They want to be able to travel to various resorts in Montana to go skiing in the winter and backpacking and fishing, fly fishing, in the summer. My colleagues would be amazed the number of people I meet who tell me they come to Montana, especially in the summers, to go fishing and just have a good vacation. They want the same highways in Montana that they will find in other States of the Nation. I just cannot say too strongly how much we need this legislation. I might say, too, this has been a product of bipartisanship, which is so important. We all know that most anything of consequence that gets passed in the Senate is passed only when we work together, Republicans, Democrats, House and Senate. That is this bill. That is this legislation. I take my hat off to the chairman of the EPW Committee, Senator Inhofe, and to the ranking member, Senator Jeffords, who worked very closely together. I might also say that the money for this bill has to be authorized by the Finance Committee. That is the committee of which I am the ranking member, and the chairman of our committee just spoke preceding me. We have all worked together, all four of us, on a bipartisan basis to get a good highway bill passed. That is the only way we can do legislation, in my view. The bill also corrects two mistakes. One of them currently--there are a lot of them, but a lot of the money now that goes to the general fund should go to the highway trust fund. For example, interest on the highway trust fund currently goes to the general fund. Well, that does not make any sense. It is interest on the highway trust fund. It should go to the highway program. That is a no-brainer. The same with the ethanol subsidy. There is a 2.5 percent deduction from the ethanol portion of the highway users tax that goes to general revenue. That does not make any sense. Folks who drive cars powered by gasohol drive on highways just like people who drive cars powered by an ordinary gas engine. It seems to me that for anybody who drives on the highway, the excise and gasoline taxes they pay should go to the highway trust fund. A portion of it should not go over to the general revenue. The Finance Committee fixed that and there are some other changes as well. To summarize, this is a good bill. It is needed. I urge my colleagues to pass it very quickly. The cloture vote was very reassuring. I think only 11 Senators voted against cloture and that was because the remaining Senators who voted for cloture realized we have to proceed. We have to get this bill passed; it is very important. I encourage my colleagues to act accordingly. I also thank my good friend, Senator Reid, from Nevada. He has worked hard on this bill, in a totally bipartisan way, knowing how important it is for Nevada. Nevada is a huge State. A lot of folks in Nevada live in Las Vegas and Reno, but I am sure the Senator would like to get up to the northern part of the State sometime, and this helps him do so. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chairman for his comments, and I look forward to working with him to resolve this matter. preserving parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites

Mr BAUCUS

Mr BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Congressional Access to the CMS Chief Actuary Act of 2004. This legislation provides Congress with greater access to cost estimates and other data produced and collected by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Office of the Actuary. The Office of the Actuary is a group of about 50 actuaries, economists, and other health professionals who provide non-partisan analyses of Medicare and other federally financed health care programs. Recently we learned that the administration's cost estimate of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 is $534 billion over 10 years, nearly $140 billion higher than the estimates produced by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Contrary to statements by some members of the administration, Congress did not have this estimate when it voted on this bill. It would be disingenuous of me to state that the higher cost estimate is my biggest concern. I have voted in the past for prescription drug bills estimated to cost more than $534 billion. And in the conference negotiations on this bill, I urged my colleagues to make changes until the final hours of the negotiations that would have added additional costs to the legislation. My greatest concern with the higher estimate is one of transparency. More specifically, I am concerned about the degree to which access to the CMS career actuaries has been restricted by this administration. Had Congress been able to freely communicate with the career actuaries during last year's Medicare negotiations, it would not have been surprised by the higher estimates. Moreover, I believe that input from the CMS actuaries could have informed the conferees and perhaps improved certain aspects of the bill in a positive way. And why shouldn't Congress have access to all available information on legislation under consideration? The restrictions placed on congressional access to the CMS actuary is in clear violation of the report language that was included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA 97). The 1997 BBA established the Office of the Actuary within CMS, which was then called the Health Care Financing Administration. Report language accompanying the legislation stated, ``The independence of the Office of the Actuary with respect to providing assistance to the Congress is vital. The process of monitoring, updating, and reforming the Medicare and Medicaid programs is greatly enhanced by the free flow of actuarial information from the Office of the Actuary to the committees of jurisdiction in the Congress.'' While Congress intended that the Office of the Actuary would provide it with cost and other data as requested, a free flow of information has not occurred--particularly over the past year. I requested, as well as several of my colleagues, information from the Office of Actuary throughout last year's Medicare deliberations; however, our requests were unfulfilled. I do not fault the professionals in the Office of the Actuary. Rather, I believe the lack of response was the result of inappropriate restrictions placed on the office by administration political officials. In order for Congress to craft good legislation, we need access to the most up-to-date actuarial and cost information. CBO will always remain Congress's official score-keeper. But a second independent assessment is critical, particularly if the two estimates differ, as was the case of the recent Medicare legislation. Congress needs to understand the reasons for the differences, and only then can it make fully-informed decisions. And again, I ask, why shouldn't Congress have access to all available information on legislation under consideration? The legislation that I introduce today is very simple. It codifies the 1997 BBA report language to require that Congress have direct and open access to information and estimates produced by the independent CMS career actuaries. The bill's purpose is to improve Congress's ability to write good legislation and to make well-informed decisions. I want to be clear. The administration's higher cost-estimate does not change my support of this Medicare legislation. I continue to be a proud supporter of the bill. But I have also pledged to work to improve its flaws and to address its shortcomings. Any efforts to improve this bill will require vigilant oversight of its implementation and will require having access to the latest information about the program's participation, payment, and costs. The CMS career actuaries will play a fundamental role in the data collection. The administration's past practices of restricting and censoring this information cannot continue. This bill is about improving transparency in government and decision making. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr BAUCUS

Mr BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Congressional Access to the CMS Chief Actuary Act of 2004. This legislation provides Congress with greater access to cost estimates and other data produced and collected by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Office of the Actuary. The Office of the Actuary is a group of about 50 actuaries, economists, and other health professionals who provide non-partisan analyses of Medicare and other federally financed health care programs. Recently we learned that the administration's cost estimate of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 is $534 billion over 10 years, nearly $140 billion higher than the estimates produced by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Contrary to statements by some members of the administration, Congress did not have this estimate when it voted on this bill. It would be disingenuous of me to state that the higher cost estimate is my biggest concern. I have voted in the past for prescription drug bills estimated to cost more than $534 billion. And in the conference negotiations on this bill, I urged my colleagues to make changes until the final hours of the negotiations that would have added additional costs to the legislation. My greatest concern with the higher estimate is one of transparency. More specifically, I am concerned about the degree to which access to the CMS career actuaries has been restricted by this administration. Had Congress been able to freely communicate with the career actuaries during last year's Medicare negotiations, it would not have been surprised by the higher estimates. Moreover, I believe that input from the CMS actuaries could have informed the conferees and perhaps improved certain aspects of the bill in a positive way. And why shouldn't Congress have access to all available information on legislation under consideration? The restrictions placed on congressional access to the CMS actuary is in clear violation of the report language that was included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA 97). The 1997 BBA established the Office of the Actuary within CMS, which was then called the Health Care Financing Administration. Report language accompanying the legislation stated, ``The independence of the Office of the Actuary with respect to providing assistance to the Congress is vital. The process of monitoring, updating, and reforming the Medicare and Medicaid programs is greatly enhanced by the free flow of actuarial information from the Office of the Actuary to the committees of jurisdiction in the Congress.'' While Congress intended that the Office of the Actuary would provide it with cost and other data as requested, a free flow of information has not occurred--particularly over the past year. I requested, as well as several of my colleagues, information from the Office of Actuary throughout last year's Medicare deliberations; however, our requests were unfulfilled. I do not fault the professionals in the Office of the Actuary. Rather, I believe the lack of response was the result of inappropriate restrictions placed on the office by administration political officials. In order for Congress to craft good legislation, we need access to the most up-to-date actuarial and cost information. CBO will always remain Congress's official score-keeper. But a second independent assessment is critical, particularly if the two estimates differ, as was the case of the recent Medicare legislation. Congress needs to understand the reasons for the differences, and only then can it make fully-informed decisions. And again, I ask, why shouldn't Congress have access to all available information on legislation under consideration? The legislation that I introduce today is very simple. It codifies the 1997 BBA report language to require that Congress have direct and open access to information and estimates produced by the independent CMS career actuaries. The bill's purpose is to improve Congress's ability to write good legislation and to make well-informed decisions. I want to be clear. The administration's higher cost-estimate does not change my support of this Medicare legislation. I continue to be a proud supporter of the bill. But I have also pledged to work to improve its flaws and to address its shortcomings. Any efforts to improve this bill will require vigilant oversight of its implementation and will require having access to the latest information about the program's participation, payment, and costs. The CMS career actuaries will play a fundamental role in the data collection. The administration's past practices of restricting and censoring this information cannot continue. This bill is about improving transparency in government and decision making. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about our international trade policy--specifically this administration's selection of free trade agreements. A year-and-a-half ago, many of us stood on this floor arguing that we should grant the President trade negotiating authority, or fast track. We did so because we believe that good trade agreements can create jobs for American workers and farmers. I still believe that. And I believe we must move ahead with an aggressive trade agenda--even in an election year. So what does that mean? Of course, our first priorities should be moving ahead with negotiations in the World Trade Organization and completing the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Those agreements provide--by far--the best opportunities for American workers and farmers. Unfortunately, both of those agreements are languishing. WTO negotiations broke down last fall in Cancun. And the FTAA has been watered down so much that many are starting to question its value. The administration, rightly, has chosen not to put all of its eggs in one basket. They have, over the last several years, initiated a number of new free trade agreements. Now generally, I support this approach. We cannot allow the intransigence of some countries to hold us back from seeking new markets. But the process by which we select new FTAs is deeply flawed. Initially, there was no process at all. There was no consultation with Congress, no public process, no criteria. To be fair, there's been some improvement--but not much, and only after serious criticism from Congress and the business community. Mr. President, as a way to try to understand the administration's trade policy, Congressman Cal Dooley and I asked the General Accounting Office to assess the criteria and processes that drive the selection of our free trade agreement partners. Today, GAO is releasing their report, and its findings confirm a number of serious concerns. First, the criteria themselves are so broad I question whether they are meaningful. GAO finds that the criteria used within the administration to justify the selection of FTA partners have been a moving target. Different sets of criteria were used, for example, when deciding to go forward with the Central American and Australian FTAs than were used for some of the most recently announced FTAs, such as Thailand, the Andeans, and Panama. Whatever the criteria considered, they are not weighted by importance. Moreover, the criteria are so broad--and their consideration so open-ended--it is hard to imagine any country in the world that couldn't meet them. Second, to the extent that the existing criteria and review process set priorities, I question whether they are the right ones. GAO finds that strategic and foreign policy goals dominate the FTA selection process. In my view, this takes our trade policy down the wrong path. I have long believed that trade agreements should be pursued on their own merits--because they create commercial opportunities for our farmers and businesses, and most critically, because they hold out the prospect of more and better-paying jobs for American workers. These paramount concerns seem largely lost in the selection process, which looks like more of a throw-back to the Cold War--when trade policy was treated primarily as an instrument of foreign policy. Third, the entire selection process is woefully lacking in transparency and public participation. GAO finds that, at the time this report was requested, there was virtually no formal process at all for selecting FTAs. The attention focused on this situation by this investigation has clearly contributed to the development of a more formal interagency process for considering potential FTAs. But the process is still a closed one. There is no notice of countries under consideration for future FTAs until the choice has already been made. There is no formal process for soliciting the views of Congress, the business community, or the general public. There is no formal public discussion of how to prioritize negotiating resources. To my surprise, in fact, the administration has insisted until recently that the selection criteria themselves are classified. Important trade policy decisions like these should not be made in secret based on secret criteria. Mr. President, at a time when manufacturing and other jobs are increasingly moving offshore, we need a trade policy that helps U.S. companies create and keep good jobs in this country. We need to bring the focus of our trade agenda back to commercial benefits and, most importantly, to jobs. We need to have a public dialogue on how choices are made and how resources are allocated. I urge the administration to engage with Congress to address the issues raised by this report. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to spend some time today talking about the issue of Cuba. This was an issue that the Senate spent a lot of time on last year, and I am here today to tell my colleagues we are just as committed this year. Last year, as most Members know, we made tremendous progress toward eliminating the Cuba travel ban and easing the four-decade-old embargo. As part of the appropriations process last year, both the Senate and the House passed amendments overwhelmingly that would temporarily suspend enforcement of the Cuba travel ban. I was, frankly, not only disappointed but outraged that this provision was taken out of the final omnibus bill. It should not have been, especially since the measure passed both bodies by very large margins. In stripping out that provision, the leadership broke the rules of Congress and defied the will of the majority of both Houses. That is simply undemocratic. It is wrong. It is not the way bills should be handled. While disappointed, I emphasize today that the majority of us who favor ending this embargo will work hard this year to pass legislation, one way or another, through both bodies of the Congress, through conference, and on to the President's desk. Senators Enzi, Dorgan, and I have introduced legislation that would permanently end the travel ban. Last year, that legislation passed out of the Foreign Relations Committee by a vote of 13 to 5, a very large margin. The bill has 33 cosponsors and is now ready for floor consideration. I respectfully ask the majority and minority leaders to make floor time available to consider the legislation. The fight to end the Cuba travel ban is not over. It has just begun. It is ironic that we finally face this moment at the same time that we are scrutinizing both the war on terrorism and the stretched Federal budget because enforcing the Cuba travel ban means the use of scarce Federal resources. It is important for Senators to understand that the Cuba travel ban is enforced by the same Federal agency--the Office of Foreign Assets Control or OFAC--that also is charged with rooting out the sources of international terrorist financing and stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Somewhere overseas, a massive international financial network routes millions of dollars to Osama bin Laden and other terrorists. Their access to dollars is their lifeline, their sole means of attacking our citizens and our soldiers. Rooting out this network and shutting it down is clearly one of our Nation's top priorities. Yet the very agency that is charged with this crucial task must divert valuable resources to enforce an absurd travel ban that a clear majority of Congress has already voted to terminate. It doesn't make any sense. By its own estimate, OFAC diverts one-sixth of its employee resources to enforcing a silly travel ban. How can we justify diverting $1 of this limited budget, let alone one-sixth of our resources? Just as disturbing, late last week the Department of Homeland Security announced that it, too, would divert some of its resources to monitoring U.S. citizens who might have traveled to Cuba. In a post-9/11 world, I do not understand the administration's priorities. I hope this year we can finally change this policy and the Senate will have a chance to fully debate the issue so we can finally make some sense out of the travel policy we do not have with Cuba. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a good friend of mine, Judge Diane Barz, who is retiring from her successful career as a Yellowstone County District Court Judge. Judge Barz is a remarkable woman who has enjoyed a distinguished and wonderful career as a member of the Montana Bar. Judge Braz' career is notably one of ``firsts.'' She was the only woman in her University of Montana Law Class of 1968, was the first female law clerk to the Montana Supreme Court, started the first ``female'' law firm with her colleague Doris Poplar in 1973, was the first woman district court judge, and youngest, and the first female attorney appointed to the bench of the Montana Supreme Court. Judge Barz has not only been an exemplary attorney and member of the bench, she has been a role model for women and champion for children. Anyone who has worked with Judge Braz knows that what ever she does, she does it with a leading role. Judge Barz has been instrumental in the development of your court in Montana as we know it today. She doesn't just sit back--she gets the job done! As a member of the bench, she has been gentle and compassionate with children and families when the circumstances required it, but she could be as tough as nails when justice demanded it. Most importantly, Judge Braz always aspired to do what was right for the children and families of Montana. We have all been well served by her.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. This amendment specifically addresses the problems faced by the steel and airline industry. However, I also have concerns about other types of companies. Some of these companies should be allowed to access the DRC relief that is in this bill. I believe my colleagues share my concerns, and that is why we have included an application process in this amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. This amendment provides short-term relief for multiemployer pension plans that are struggling to cope with unprecedented losses on their equity investments in the first few years of this decade. The temporary funding relief would help plans deal with the investment losses they suffered through 2002, by letting them postpone amortization of the portion of those losses that would otherwise be recognized for funding purposes in any two of the plan years beginning after June 30, 2002 and before July 1, 2006.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, is there a time limit?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have an additional 5 minutes. Perhaps it has to be yielded to me by someone.