Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to explain why I had to oppose the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act. First, let me say that my vote does not reflect a change my belief that global climate change is a serious problem, perhaps one of the most serious long-term environmental and public health problems facing the world over the next century. I am deeply disappointed that this administration has decided not to actively engage the world on this issue and has in fact disengaged itself from the world on global climate change. I echo the concerns of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, that the administration's approach is short-sighted, and that it is no longer constructive to argue that human-caused emissions are not contributing to the warming of the earth. The science is just too strong to believe otherwise. The administration's approach is frustrating because engaging the world particularly the developing world--is the only way we will ever get a handle on rising greenhouse gas emissions. Small reductions in emissions made by the U.S. will be meaningless if those reductions are made unilaterally. We must have assurances that the world is moving hand in hand with us--and is making similar sacrifices--before we handicap our own economy. This will take time, but solving the problem of global warming is a life-time endeavor by any estimate, for our generation, and the next. Part of this effort will include massive investments in new energy technologies, in renewables, in alternative energy, in hybrid cars and fuel cells, and in making our economy and the world's economy more energy efficient. It will likely, if and when the United States takes the leadership roll on this issue that it should, involve mandatory greenhouse gas reductions by all nations. I would like to compliment Senators McCain and Lieberman for working so hard on this proposal, and for attempting to find a balanced solution. If we had more time, and more attention from the administration, I am confident that we could work together on a common sense bill that would achieve meaningful reductions in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions without threatening the U.S. economy or our global competitiveness. Such a bill would hopefully complement a meaningful and real global consensus on how to address human-caused climate change. I voted against McCain-Lieberman today because I don't think the country is ready to take the steps outlined in their bill and because I was concerned about the impacts on my state, particularly agriculture, from increased natural gas prices. But I agree that we must move forward aggressively to put the United States and the world on track to significantly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. It will only get harder the longer we continue to ignore the problem.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank all of my colleagues for their commitment to this issue.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Senator McCain and I intended to offer an amendment to H.R. 1904 to establish a permanent revolving fund to address the annual problem of funding emergency fire suppression needs--a problem that essentially robs funds from the very fuel reduction projects H.R. 1904 is designed to promote. When I was in Montana this summer, I visited with some of the firefighting teams near Glacier National Park. It was absolutely amazing to see the organization and coordination that goes into fighting these fires. We had folks from Federal, State, and local agencies and local volunteer fire departments; local loggers; teams from Australia and New Zealand; and private contractors all working together to protect lives and property. I can't tell you how impressed and overwhelmed I was by the dedication and professionalism of the firefighters on the ground. These first-rate men and women earned the deep respect and gratitude of the residents of many Montana cities and towns, particularly in West Glacier. I know that my colleagues saw much the same thing in their states, and we are all seeing it now in California. But, this extraordinary and superior fire-fighting effort costs money--$305 million spent in Montana alone this year to fight the fires that blanketed my state. And as is too often the case, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management were once again strapped for fire suppression funds during extreme fire conditions. They had to borrow from other program funds to get the job done in Montana and other states this summer. The Forest Service and Department of Interior borrowed $860 million last fiscal year to pay fire suppression costs. While recent supplemental funding for the agencies will repay some of these accounts, the agencies will still be short $170 million. Some Forest Service accounts will not be repaid, including accounts to rehabilitate burned areas. This is enormously counterproductive. And, it wastes scarce federal resources. This state of affairs cannot continue. We have to be smarter about managing this situation in the future. Since we can't accurately predict wildfire suppression needs each year when we provide for appropriations, we need a special funding strategy to account for extreme fire years. The alternative is extreme disruption to Forest Service and Interior budgets and day-to-day responsibilities, important work deferred or canceled, and jobs lost. Senator McCain and I believe we have a responsible solution that is a fair, reasoned, and balanced approach to the problem. It's time we all faced up to our responsibilities to provide adequate and stable funding to the Forest Service and Interior for fire suppression efforts, while ensuring minimal disruption to their current programs and projects and encouraging these agencies to keep their costs under control. However, Senator McCain and I will not offer our amendment because Senator Craig and others have agreed to work with us, and with Senator Bingaman, to find a solution to this problem as soon as possible. I would like to see H.R. 1904 pass quickly, and I have no interest in delay. I appreciate Senator Craig's recognition of the problem and commitment to address it.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue of great concern to me--the ban on travel to Cuba. Last week, the Senate scored an important victory in the fight to bring common sense to U.S. policy toward Cuba. We voted by a wide margin--59 to 36--to suspend enforcement of the travel ban. The House approved the same amendment in September, also by a wide margin. The wide margin of victory reflects the majority of Americans who want an end to the travel ban. Over the weekend, editorial writers from a diverse range of newspapers noted and applauded our victory: the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Orlando Sentinel- Tribune. Let me offer just a few quotes: the Chicago Tribune says: In an age of very real terrorist threats, Cuba hardly makes the list. For the Department of Homeland Security to redouble its efforts and tie up more money and personnel in enforcing the travel ban against Cuba--as the president proposed two weeks ago--is an incredible waste of resources. The New York Times points out: The proper response to such outrages as the Castro regime's roundup of dissidents and writers earlier this year is to seek to overwhelm the island with American influence. And the Orlando Sentinel argues: The ban on U.S. travel is futile, self-defeating, a waste of scarce resources and inconsistent with other American policies. These papers spoke out in favor of the Senate's actions because they recognize that the current policy has been a failure and because they know that engagement with Cuba is the best and most effective way to bring democratic change to Cuba. In my view, the Cuba travel provisions should not even be subject to conference. The House and Senate have passed the same amendment; there is nothing for conferees to discuss. There are many Members of this body who have worked hard to ease the embargo. Any Treasury-Transportation conference report that does not include the Senate and House-passed language is unacceptable, and we will look at all procedural options to stop this from happening. That said, I fully expect this amendment to become law. Despite recent incorrect reporting, none of the supporters of this legislation believe that we can't accomplish our goal of lifting the Cuba travel ban. And I have to say here that I do not believe the President will veto this bill. Of course, the Cuba provisions have overwhelming support, but the appropriations bill itself passed the Senate 90 to 3. The administration knows a veto could be easily overridden. I do believe that pro-embargo forces see the writing on the wall. Momentum to end the embargo is clearly building. We have had a year filled with success. Several months ago, Senators Enzi, Dorgan, and I introduced legislation, S. 950, that would permanently lift the travel ban. There are 31 cosponsors of that legislation, and we are adding new cosponsors this week. The Foreign Relations Committee has committed to vote on that legislation by the end of the year, and I expect the committee to approve it by a large majority. Recent polls indicate that most Americans oppose the travel ban. In fact, even most Cuban Americans--historically supportive of the embargo--favor lifting the ban. So the Senate and the House votes are only the latest rebuke of an outdated policy. Thirteen of the 16 Senate appropriators on the Subcommittee were supportive of the Cuba amendment. And I am confident they will work hard to keep this provision. But I also know they will be under some pressure. I urge them to stand up to those who might try to defy the will of the Congress. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the aforementioned editorials. There being on objection, the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, first, I thank my friend, the Senator from Nevada, and the managers of the bill for their accommodation. It is vital that we pass this legislation this year. Montana recently suffered from devastating wildfires, as have other western States. As the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein pointed out repeatedly, the current news from Southern California is a painful reminder of a very large problem. Across this country forests are threatened by insects, disease and the build up of hazardous fuels. The impacts of these conditions are real. And they play out year after year, fueling large fires that destroy lives and homes, diminish water and air quality, and destroy wildlilfe habitat. The cost of containing these large fires is staggering, straining State and Federal budgets and devastating local economies. There are many reasons for the situation we are in today, ranging from weather and natural cycles to urban sprawl and the fire suppression policies of the past. We can't do anything to change the weather and we certainly can't change the past, but we can use today's knowledge and the wisdom of our experience to do better. Neglecting the problem is not the answer; nor is more talk. We have to try a new approach. The compromise healthy forests bill is not perfect, but I believe it offers options to more efficiently address our forest health problems and the consequences they have on real people. I also believe this bill will help put people in rural communities back to work in the woods, especially in my State of Montana. I have said over and over again that a healthy forests bill must first allow federal agencies and communities to address dangerous fuel loadings on a local level, quickly and efficiently. Second, it must support small, independent mills and put local people to work in the forests and the mills. Third, it must promote and protect citizen involvement and be fair to the principles underlying the federal judicial system. And finally, it must protect and help restore special and sensitive places like wilderness areas. I think we have achieved that with this legislation. People impacted by forest health problems don't belong to just one political party. This is a problem that requires all sides to work together. I would like to commend the tremendous efforts of my Democratic and Republican colleagues, including Senators Feinstein, Wyden, Cochran, Craig, Crapo, McCain and Lincoln, who along with several other Senators and myself worked very had to put together the compromise on healthy forests that I am proud to support and co-sponsor. This was no small feat; this bill touches on some very divisive issues that I wasn't sure we would ever find a way to solve. But, we did and that is why we are here today having a serious conversation about actually passing a bill. I believe the compromise healthy forest bill is responsive to our need to more efficiently reduce the threat of wildfire while ensuring adequate environmental protections, citizen participation, and an independent judiciary. There is nothing in this legislation that undermines existing environmental laws, or a person's ability to be involved in decisions that impact their public lands. In fact, this legislation requires citizen collaboration beyond existing law--current law does not require the secretary to encourage citizen collaboration or to hold a public meeting on proposed projects. What I believe this legislation does do is help keep the process open and honest. I ask unanimous consent that an article for today's Missoulian newspaper, from Missoula, MT, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, 1 year ago the Senate, Minnesota, and our Nation suffered a great loss. I remember that day clearly. I was in Great Falls attending the Montana Farmers Union Convention. I was in such disbelief. Senator Wellstone, his wife Sheila, daughter Marcia, three of his staffers Mary McEvoy, Tom Lapic and Will McLaughlin, and two pilots tragically lost their lives in a plane crash in northern Minnesota. Senator Wellstone, known to everyone simply as Paul, served his state of Minnesota for 12 years. Paul was a special person for whom I had the highest personal regard. Though I may not have always agreed with Paul on all the issues, I always respected him as he expressed his views with such passion and conviction. Paul was frequently seen on the Senate floor giving impassioned speeches on different issues. He was always fighting for the little guy, the underdog. Whether it was providing disaster assistance for farmers and ranchers, working mental health parity, or helping the less fortunate in our society, Paul was always fighting for what he believed in. I was fortunate to sit with Paul on the Senate Agricultural Committee. Though Paul may not have sat at the head of the table, he made it clear that his message was important and that everyone heard it. I was proud and grateful to have Paul on my team fighting for natural disaster assistance for farmers in 2001 and 2002. Minnesota, Montana, and our Nation's agriculture producers benefited from his fight throughout the debate. Paul embraced his work the same way he embraced his life and relationship with Sheila. With passion, dedication and conviction. I admired him greatly. Paul loved his State and he loved his job as Senator, but most of all he loved his wife Sheila. And in order to understand Paul, one had to understand Paul and Sheila's relationship. Paul and Sheila were a package deal. She was his world. I often saw the two of them walking the halls of the Senate together. And Paul always insisted that Sheila get credit for his successes. She was his rock. She was his life. She was his everything. It seems most appropriate that Paul and Sheila left this life together. He would have been lost without her. On the 1-year anniversary of his passing, Paul is sorely missed. The Senate is not the same without him. The floor is a little quieter. The halls are no longer filled with his enthusiasm and passion for life and justice. Paul was a good man, a good senator, and a good friend. Paul Wellstone is deeply missed. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment that would suspend the absurd restrictions against travel by United States citizens in Cuba. When you stop and think about it, why should the U.S. Government restrict the freedom of U.S. citizens to travel? Particularly we should end the restriction on travel to Cuba. Over 25 colleagues of mine have cosponsored legislation that says we should end the travel ban, something I very much agree with. When we have the vote, not too far from now, it is my expectation and certainly my hope the majority of my colleagues will agree it does not make sense for the U.S. Government to restrict the travel of United States citizens to Cuba. Why do I say that? First, it limits one of our basic freedoms, the freedom of United States citizens to travel. How ironic it is that democracy in the United States of America, which purports to be a country that encourages democracy around the world, basically restricts American liberties. Why restrict American liberties in order to encourage democracies in other countries? The administration's restriction of United States citizens' travel to Cuba affects our ability to fight the war on terrorism. Why do I say that? Because the Treasury Department must waste scarce and valuable resources to enforce these travel restrictions. It is maddening to me the administration is trying to administer resources for that effort instead of fighting terrorism, which is much more pernicious and where we must spend much more. Another reason it makes no sense to restrict United States citizens' travel to Cuba is it makes it harder for Americans to establish business relationships, to sell products to Cuba, to get to know the Cuban people and put deals together. People in other countries can travel to Cuba--the French, Germans, Canadians. Their governments say sure, great, we want our citizens to travel to Cuba. But we are preventing our American farmers, our ranchers, our American citizens from selling products to Cuba and getting to know the Cuban people. It makes no sense. I believe we should lift the travel restrictions. It would increase sales of American products to Cuba, increase contact with Cuba, increase the ability of American citizens to develop relationships with people in Cuba which inure to the benefit certainly of the United States and to the Cuban people. I also add parenthetically that earlier this year the Treasury Department, under the guidance of the State Department, went an extra step in pursuing their wrongheaded approach in restricting travel of United States citizens to Cuba by refusing to allow a license for a second United States agribusiness expedition in Cuba. The first expedition was very successful, resulting in $92 million in sales. That is $92 million of agriculture sales forfeited because our own Government would not allow United States citizens to travel as farmers and ranchers and businessmen particularly to organize the expedition. Worst of all, restricting American citizens from going to Cuba also hurts Cubans. The travel ban shelters the Castro regime and protects them from American influence, limiting the opportunity for Cubans to interact with Americans. The infamous arrests of 75 dissidents last spring is a case in point. They were arrested because they got, allegedly, too close to Americans. In other words, the arrests indicate the Cuban Government fears increasing contacts between dissidents and American citizens. More evidence and more contact between Americans and Cuban citizens will help encourage democracy. Our country has fallen into the mistaken belief that we should have carrots and sticks with Cuba; that is, reward Cuba for doing good things and punish Cuba for doing bad things. That gives Cuba veto power over United States foreign policy with respect to Cuba and puts the policy in the hands of Castro and lets him decide what we Americans do or do not do, lets him decide whether we can allow American citizens to travel to Cuba. It makes no sense whatever. Yet that is a policy this administration encourages. The long and short of this is--and I am repeating arguments others are making--coolly and calmly stand back and ask what is right, what makes sense. Should the U.S. Government prevent American citizens from traveling to Cuba? What will be accomplished by maintaining that restriction? What is to be accomplished if we let American citizens travel? One thing we certainly know, over the last 40 years restricting the travel of American citizens to Cuba and the embargo we have against trade in Cuba has not worked. It has not changed the Castro regime. Fidel Castro is still president. It has not worked. If something has not worked, why not try something else, try something that seems logical? What seems logical is to engage Cubans. Cuba is a country. The United States is a country. Cuba is not a threat to the United States of America. Certainly Fidel Castro is in many respects not anybody we look up to particularly when he has such a repressionist regime, but it makes sense to engage Cuba. That will probably accelerate the changes in Cuba if we want; that is, the changes toward a more democratic system. I have traveled to Cuba a couple of times. I was there recently with good Montanans, farmers and ranchers. I was struck with the poverty that exists in Cuba. The Castro dictatorship has decimated the Cuban economy, which is all the more reason why if we were to let Americans visit Cuba certainly with respect to food and agricultural products and trade with Cuba, that would help the Cuban people as well as give the United States farmers and ranchers another business opportunity. It is time for a change. I understand the politics of this issue. We all know the politics. We also know politics are probably wrong. The reasons why the U.S. Government still has this travel ban are for political reasons that are not right. It is an opportunity for the United States and Congress to go on the right course, the right direction, and put those political considerations aside and not be held hostage by the political interests but, rather, allow American citizens to travel to Cuba. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on October 15, we honored the late Senator Mike Mansfield with the unveiling of the new book, ``Senator Mansfield: The Extraordinary Life of a Great American Statesman and Diplomat,'' by author Don Oberdorfer. To many, he was Senator Mansfield, Majority Leader Mansfield, or Ambassador Mansfield. To us in Montana, he was just Mike. He was our Mike. He was humble, self effacing, and didn't want people making a big fuss about him. Although he wouldn't have wanted one, I'd like to thank the University of Montana and their alumni for hosting an event here in the Capitol to commemorate the life and times of Mike through this new book. Mike had three great loves in his life: his wife Maureen, his State of Montana and serving in the United States Senate. Maureen was the love of his life. He always said that his successes were because of her. The last time I visited Mike in the hospital his face lit up when he talked about her. ``What a gal,'' he said. ``What a gal she was.'' Mike was a good friend and a great inspiration to many people, including myself. Mike encouraged me to get into public service, he was my mentor when I was first elected to Congress, and he provided me sage counsel until his death. Mike would think that tonight's event was too much. That is just the kind of man he was. But it's our job to keep his memory alive and educate others on what a great impact he had on Montana, the Nation, and the world. It's our responsibility to ensure others can learn from his example of working together to do what's right. The University of Montana Alumni Association, the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Library, the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center, and the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation here in Washington, D.C. all put forth a great effort to make this event possible. I greatly appreciate their hard work and dedication to the legacy of Maureen and Mike Mansfield. And finally, I wish to recognize Don Oberdorfer for his persistence and dedication in writing about Mike's life. I thank Don for honoring a great man, our Mike. Montana's Mike Mansfield. He had the hands of a miner, the mind of a scholar, and the heart of a hero. We pay tribute to him and his beloved Maureen.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to highlight a small band of employees in my home State who deserve special recognition for the consistent high quality work they do. I am proud and pleased to honor Michelle Thibodeau, Chief of the Disability Determination Services office in Helena, MT, and her entire staff. Special recognition must also go to Cathy Surdock who works on youth claims and has been singled out for her excellence. My constituents who face disabilities depend on those at the Disability Determination Services office to evaluate their claims and issue a fair and timely decision. Issuing these decisions quickly is of the utmost importance and makes a real difference to a lot of Montanans. The regional Social Security Administration Commissioner in Denver has recognized Montana's Disability Determination Services office for having the Nation's best processing time for claims. The Helena office averages 68 days processing time as compared to the national average of 110 days. This important honor is for work accomplished during Federal fiscal year 2002. This office won the same award for fiscal year 1999. Additionally, in 2001, they were awarded the Commissioner's Citation for Quality. Michelle's office reviews about 12,000 claims for benefits each year, 2000 of which involve children. This award recognizes the staff ``for exemplary performance in accuracy, timeliness and productivity in providing exceptional service to Montana's citizens with disabilities.'' Montanans that find themselves physically and mentally challenged are grateful for the heroic steps that Michelle's staff has taken to address their needs in a timely fashion. The professionalism, compassion and technical expertise exhibited by the dedicated staff at the Disability Determination Services office is an example for us all. In closing, I would like to offer my congratulations to Michelle, Cathy and the entire crew at Disability Determination Services and also my thanks for the good work you do daily. This is just another example of neighbor helping neighbor in the great State of Montana.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Levin's bill, S. 1767, the Auditor Independence and Tax Shelters Act. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor. The Auditor Independence and Tax Shelters Act compliments the legislation that I introduced last year, the Tax Shelter Transparency Act. Just this year, the Tax Shelter Transparency Act has been passed by the Senate Finance Committee four times--in the Energy bill, the CARE Act, the Jobs and Growth bill, and most recently as part of the Jumpstart Our Business Strength Act. The same legislation has passed the full Senate three times--in the Energy bill, the CARE Act, and in the Jobs and Growth bill. Senator Levin's legislation shuts down tax shelter promotion from the audit and financial statement side of the equation. Specifically, S. 1767 would strengthen auditor independence by prohibiting them from providing tax shelter services to their audit clients. The legislation would also reduce potential auditor conflicts of interest by codifying four auditor independence principles to guide the audit committees of the Board of Directors of a publicly traded company, when that committee is required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to decide whether the company may provide certain non-audit services to the corporation. The proliferation of abusive tax shelters has been referred to as our nation's most significant tax compliance problem. The development, selling, and buying of tax shelters has also been characterized as a ``race to the bottom.'' The New York State Bar Association said ``the constant promotion of these frequently artificial transactions breeds significant disrespect for the tax system, encouraging responsible corporate taxpayers to expect this type of activity to be the norm, and to follow the lead of other taxpayers who have engaged in tax advantaged transactions.'' Simply put, this is unacceptable. It has been 2 years since the collapse of Enron. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act took significant steps to restore confidence in corporate America. But, when it comes to ensuring auditor independence, Sarbanes-Oxley did not go far enough. The passage of the Auditor Independence and Tax Shelters Act will help ensure that last year's corporate reform efforts have their intended effect of restoring real independence to the ``independent audit.'' This morning, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on tax shelters. We learned that the tax shelter problem is widespread. Tax shelter schemes are not just an Enron and Arthur Andersen phenomenon. They are developed and promoted by accounting firms, law firms, and investment banks. Many corporations and individuals purchase tax shelters. To give you an idea of the burden they are placing on these honest taxpayers--during the 1990s alone--actions taken to shut down the tax shelters that we knew about saved the American taxpayer $80 billion. More recently, a study commissioned by the IRS estimates the current cost to honest taxpayers ranges from $14 billion to $18 billion a year. That is up to $180 billion over ten years. I am simply unwilling to tell the schoolteacher in Montana that he needs to pony up a little more because Congress is unwilling to shut down a loophole that is costing tens of billions every year. However, since the collapse of Enron, the Congress has failed to enact a single piece of tax legislation to curb tax shelter abuses. The time has come to shut down these abusive practices. I urge all of my congressional colleagues in the House and the Senate--to support the Auditor Independence and Tax Shelters Act and the Tax Shelter Transparency Act and send both of these pieces of tax shelter legislation to the President for his signature by the end of the year.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wish to address my amendment No. 1831 to the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill. Mr. President, today, our Nation faces three simultaneous challenges. This amendment would address each. First, we need to support our troops and protect our national security. Second, we must not worsen our fiscal crisis. And third, we must work to restore our ailing economy. We are considering today a bill that, among other things, provides resources to support our troops. Now many of my colleagues have made the case, and made it well, that our government could well have avoided the quagmire that has become Iraq. And others of my colleagues have also made the case that the bill before us includes spending that is not appropriate for an emergency supplemental appropriations bill. The merits of these disputes aside, that is not the subject of my amendment. The bill before us includes funding that will help our fighting men and women who valiantly serve our Nation. For that reason, I, and I expect the vast majority of Senators, will support this bill. But as I noted at the outset, our entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan are not the only challenges that face our Nation. We also face crises of fiscal solvency. And we also face a stagnant economy. This amendment would address these two challenges as well. As would the amendment offered by my colleague from Delaware, Mr. Biden, my amendment would pay for the spending in the bill before us today. As was so ably argued by the Senator from Delaware, the two Senators from North Dakota, and others, our Nation faces a fiscal crisis. Even for something as important as this bill, we must now seek to pay for what we do. The Government's two most-authoritative estimators of our fiscal condition, the President's Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office, are agreed: The year just ended set an all-time record for budget deficits. In its October Monthly Budget Review, CBO stated: ``The federal government incurred a total budget deficit of about $374 billion for fiscal year 2003, CBO estimates, more than twice the deficit recorded in 2002.'' And OMB and CBO also agree that the deficit for the year just started, fiscal year 2004, will again set a record. This summer, OMB projected this year's deficit at $475 billion. CBO projected it at $480 billion. Either way, it will once more be the largest ever. And these summer projections did not include all of the new funding that we are debating today for the military occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. The bill before us today would provide $87 billion in additional funding, beyond the $79 billion already approved in this spring's supplemental appropriations bill. Of this new funding, the administration says $50 to $60 billion will spend out in fiscal year 2004. This would raise OMB's projection for next year's deficit to $525 to $535 billion. This number would be in line with private forecasts. For example, the investment firm of Goldman Sachs projects a $525 billion deficit next year. Now some say that we should ignore that these are record deficits because the numbers are smaller when compared to the size of the economy. But these deficits are large even as a percent of the GDP. A deficit of $535 billion this year would equal 4.7 percent of the GDP. This would be the same percent of the economy as was the record $290 billion deficit in 1992. It is close on the heels of the 4.8 percent to 5.1 percent deficits of the mid 1980s. And it is not far from the all-time record 6.0 percent of fiscal year 1983. And if one excludes Social Security surpluses from the calculation, as required by law, this year's deficit would be almost $700 billion. Not only would this set an all-time record in dollar terms, it would also set an all-time record as a share of the economy. Over the years to come, both OMB and CBO continue to project unacceptably large deficits. OMB projects deficits larger than $200 billion for as far as it projects--the next 5 years. And CBO's August report indicates that if one simply extends expiring tax provisions other than the bonus depreciation provision, reforms the alternative minimum tax, and spends the expected $400 billion on a Medicare prescription drug benefit, then the Government will still end the next 10 years running a deficit of more than $400 billion a year. In other words, if the Government simply stays on its current fiscal course, CBO projects that the Government will still be running unacceptably large deficits in 2013. Under this realistic, indeed, conservative, scenario, over the next 10 years, the Government will run deficits totaling nearly $4 trillion. And 10 years from now, the amount of Federal Government debt held by the public will almost double, to nearly $8 trillion. Again, private forecasters back up these scenarios. If anything, their projections are more pessimistic. The investment firm of Goldman Sachs is projecting a $5.5 trillion 10-year deficit. Using the CBO projections adjusted as I have discussed, from 2001 to 2013, the Government will have piled up $4.6 trillion in debt held by the public, or roughly $15,000 in debt for every man, woman, and child in America. Every American child born in 2013 will come into this world owing $15,000 more in taxes because of the economic decisions that the Government is making right now. That $4.6 trillion in new debt will come in addition to the $3.3 trillion in debt that we already owed in 2001. So that new baby born in 2013 will have a total debt burden of roughly $26,000 hanging over his or her head. And more and more of the Government's debt is being held by foreigners, like China. With this greater debt, we are transferring to overseas powers a greater ability to affect our economy. And that level of debt means that by 2013, the Government will be spending roughly $400 billion on interest on the debt alone. Before the Government can choose to spend anything in 2013 on fighting terrorism or education or national defense, it will have to spend $400 billion-- that's about 11\1/2\ percent of the total budget--that is nearly 2\1/2\ percent of the entire country's economic output--just to pay the interest on the debt that the Government will have accumulated by then. But that is not all. If the Government stays on its current fiscal course and runs persistent and increasing budget deficits, it will increase its borrowing requirements. It will increase the Government's demand for money. It will thus raise interest rates for mortgages, car loans, and student loans. It will thus lower economic growth. And it will thus lower the standard of living for millions of Americans. Our Nation's high national debt and high deficits at the end of the next 10 years will leave our Nation in a vulnerable fiscal condition at exactly the wrong time, as the baby boom generation starts to retire. We know to a near certainty the number of people who will reach the age of 65 in 2013. Unlike the likely results of particular economic policies, reasonable people cannot and do not disagree significantly over how many people were born in 1948--and thus over how many will be eligible for Social Security and Medicare in 2013. We know that we have a substantial budgetary challenge ahead of us, finding the money to pay for the retirement needs of the baby boom generation. If we head into the next decade with high deficits, the Government will have no room to accommodate those retirement needs. The current policy will thus leave the Government with fewer choices to respond to the growing entitlement costs of the decades to come. The current policy will thus leave us with the grim choice of raising taxes, cutting long-promised and much-needed benefits, or dramatically cutting defense, education, and other core Government services. So the first thing we need to do is to stop making things worse. We need to bring back the rule of paying as we go. And that is what this amendment would do. It would suspend some of the tax cuts that Congress enacted earlier this year. But my amendment would not do one thing that the amendment offered by my colleague from Delaware would have done. My amendment would not alter any of the tax cuts that Congress enacted in 2001. It would only affect tax cuts enacted earlier this year. My amendment makes this distinction because I--and many of my colleagues--supported the 2001 tax cuts. We believed then and still believe that the tax law changes enacted in 2001 were important to our economy. And these tax cuts are still important to our Nation's economic growth. And so my amendment would not change them. Not at all. Instead, it would postpone some of the tax cuts enacted earlier this year. When these tax cuts were debated, we were at war with Iraq. I believe--and continue to believe--that it is irresponsible to enact tax cuts during a time of war. The very fact that we are here debating an additional $87 billion for Iraq proves that. This amendment would postpone some of the tax cuts that are targeted to wealthy individuals in order to pay for this $87 billion. It would allow all of the funding in the underlying bill to go forward. It would thus support our troops. It would pay for the spending in the bill. It would thus keep us from worsening our Nation's deficit crisis. And it would pay for the spending in this bill without altering the 2001 tax cuts. It would preserve the economically beneficial effects of that tax cut in place. It would thus help our ailing economy. I shall not press my amendment to a vote on this bill. The votes on this bill are now clear. But I urge my colleagues to consider the policies that I am seeking to advance with this amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Health Care Tax Credit Expansion Act of 2003. According to the most recent census figures, more than 41 million Americans lack health insurance coverage. More than the population of 23 States, plus the District of Columbia. As premiums sky rocket and the unemployment rate remains high--despite signs of economic recovery--I worry that this number may grow even higher. For America's uninsured, the consequences of going without health coverage can be devastating. Put plainly, uninsured Americans are less healthy than those with health insurance. They delay seeking medical care or go without treatment altogether that could prevent and detect crippling illnesses. Illnesses like diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. The uninsured are far less likely to receive health services if they are injured or become ill. They don't fill prescriptions that their doctors recommend. These factors take an enormous personal toll on the lives of the uninsured. They are sicker and less productive. Their children are less likely to survive past infancy. And they must struggle with the knowledge that a serious injury or illness in their family might push them to the brink of financial ruin. And there is also the impact on the rest of the U.S. economy that must be taken into account. Because when the uninsured become so sick that they must finally seek emergency treatment, there is often no one to pay for it. No insurance company. No government program. So who absorbs the cost of uncompensated medical care? We all do. In the form of higher health care costs. Higher and higher premiums at a time when the cost of health care is already rising out of control. The situation is becoming critical. And I believe the time for talking has ended. It is time for us to examine solutions instead of talking about the problem. That is why I have joined with my colleague, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, to introduce this important piece of legislation. Our bill would provide health care assistance to the unemployed--one specific category of those without health insurance. And one where we believe there is agreement to move forward. More specifically, this bill would expand the 65 percent refundable, advanceable tax credit that is currently provided under the Trade Adjustment Assistance program to workers receiving unemployment benefits. By building on the structure that Congress put in place last year under the Trade Act, we make it more likely that unemployed workers can receive benefits in a timely manner. Without significant implementation and start-up time. And by building on the historic agreement that we reached last year, we are more likely to have support for the structure and approach. Let me be clear. This bill is not a major overhaul of the U.S. health care system that several Democratic Presidential candidates have outlined. It was not intended and does not seek to cover everyone in this country without health insurance. Rather the proposal would use the money set aside in this year's budget for the uninsured--$50 billion--on a targeted policy that I believe both sides can agree on. It is a practical, principled, incremental solution. Why the unemployed? According to the Labor Department, since February 2001, 2.6 million jobs have been lost. And with those jobs, an awful lot of health insurance has been lost, too. Despite assertions by economists that the recession has ended and the economy is experiencing signs of improvement, the unemployment rate has remained stubbornly high--6.4 percent in June. In fact, we are hearing more and more talk of the same ``jobless recovery'' that we heard about following the recession in the early 1990s. It is true that employment does not immediately improve when an economy emerges from recession. We read repeatedly that even if growth surges and business investment begins to take off tomorrow, the ranks of the unemployed may not thin for months. Unfortunately, for many, many families, this means more weeks, if not months, of endless job searches. And a longer period of time without health coverage. An estimated 46 percent of unemployed adults lack health insurance, or about 4 million unemployed workers. Less than one in three unemployed adults receives health coverage through their spouse or other family member. And while 65 percent may qualify for COBRA continuation coverage, only 7 percent can afford to enroll. That is not surprising. Premiums for this coverage average almost $700 a month for family coverage and $250 for individual coverage. A very high price, given the average $1,100 monthly UI check. Last year, when we debated the economic recovery package, both Republicans and Democrats proposed to expand health coverage for unemployed workers. There was almost universal agreement that this population deserved help and attention. So I think it's a good place for us to start from this year. Why a tax credit? There's been a lot of debate about the best way to expand health insurance coverage to the uninsured. Most Democrats favor expanding public programs like Medicaid and CHIP, and harnessing the power of the group insurance market to provide affordable coverage options. Most Republicans, however, favor a more market-based approach that gives the uninsured tax breaks and allows them to use the individual insurance market. But, after years of logjams and disagreements, we were able to come together last year when we created the TAA tax credit. The TAA tax credit merges a market-based tax credit with the affordability of the group insurance market. This proposal simply builds on that progress. With the structures now in place to implement the TAA credit, a new tax credit for the unemployed can easily be incorporated into the new system. Caveats I realize that the TAA tax credit is not a perfect model. And we may need to make some adjustments as full implementation kicks in this summer. For example, we need to ensure that the groups we intended to cover actually have access to coverage. In particular, all workers who had health insurance coverage for 3 months before they lost their jobs should be assured of coverage they qualify for under TAA. I support making the technical change that would provide that assurance. I am also willing to consider other improvements, like additional help for low income workers. But I do not think these adjustments should deter us from moving forward with an expansion of the tax credit. Millions of unemployed workers and their families need our help. And they need it now. All told, expanding the TAA tax credit to the unemployed would provide health insurance coverage for 1.4 million Americans a month who are currently unemployed and uninsured. It's not a panacea. But it's a start. I hope my colleagues will join this fight by helping us pass this legislation, and taking a solid step toward providing quality, affordable health insurance to all Americans.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Health Care Tax Credit Expansion Act of 2003. According to the most recent census figures, more than 41 million Americans lack health insurance coverage. More than the population of 23 States, plus the District of Columbia. As premiums sky rocket and the unemployment rate remains high--despite signs of economic recovery--I worry that this number may grow even higher. For America's uninsured, the consequences of going without health coverage can be devastating. Put plainly, uninsured Americans are less healthy than those with health insurance. They delay seeking medical care or go without treatment altogether that could prevent and detect crippling illnesses. Illnesses like diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. The uninsured are far less likely to receive health services if they are injured or become ill. They don't fill prescriptions that their doctors recommend. These factors take an enormous personal toll on the lives of the uninsured. They are sicker and less productive. Their children are less likely to survive past infancy. And they must struggle with the knowledge that a serious injury or illness in their family might push them to the brink of financial ruin. And there is also the impact on the rest of the U.S. economy that must be taken into account. Because when the uninsured become so sick that they must finally seek emergency treatment, there is often no one to pay for it. No insurance company. No government program. So who absorbs the cost of uncompensated medical care? We all do. In the form of higher health care costs. Higher and higher premiums at a time when the cost of health care is already rising out of control. The situation is becoming critical. And I believe the time for talking has ended. It is time for us to examine solutions instead of talking about the problem. That is why I have joined with my colleague, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, to introduce this important piece of legislation. Our bill would provide health care assistance to the unemployed--one specific category of those without health insurance. And one where we believe there is agreement to move forward. More specifically, this bill would expand the 65 percent refundable, advanceable tax credit that is currently provided under the Trade Adjustment Assistance program to workers receiving unemployment benefits. By building on the structure that Congress put in place last year under the Trade Act, we make it more likely that unemployed workers can receive benefits in a timely manner. Without significant implementation and start-up time. And by building on the historic agreement that we reached last year, we are more likely to have support for the structure and approach. Let me be clear. This bill is not a major overhaul of the U.S. health care system that several Democratic Presidential candidates have outlined. It was not intended and does not seek to cover everyone in this country without health insurance. Rather the proposal would use the money set aside in this year's budget for the uninsured--$50 billion--on a targeted policy that I believe both sides can agree on. It is a practical, principled, incremental solution. Why the unemployed? According to the Labor Department, since February 2001, 2.6 million jobs have been lost. And with those jobs, an awful lot of health insurance has been lost, too. Despite assertions by economists that the recession has ended and the economy is experiencing signs of improvement, the unemployment rate has remained stubbornly high--6.4 percent in June. In fact, we are hearing more and more talk of the same ``jobless recovery'' that we heard about following the recession in the early 1990s. It is true that employment does not immediately improve when an economy emerges from recession. We read repeatedly that even if growth surges and business investment begins to take off tomorrow, the ranks of the unemployed may not thin for months. Unfortunately, for many, many families, this means more weeks, if not months, of endless job searches. And a longer period of time without health coverage. An estimated 46 percent of unemployed adults lack health insurance, or about 4 million unemployed workers. Less than one in three unemployed adults receives health coverage through their spouse or other family member. And while 65 percent may qualify for COBRA continuation coverage, only 7 percent can afford to enroll. That is not surprising. Premiums for this coverage average almost $700 a month for family coverage and $250 for individual coverage. A very high price, given the average $1,100 monthly UI check. Last year, when we debated the economic recovery package, both Republicans and Democrats proposed to expand health coverage for unemployed workers. There was almost universal agreement that this population deserved help and attention. So I think it's a good place for us to start from this year. Why a tax credit? There's been a lot of debate about the best way to expand health insurance coverage to the uninsured. Most Democrats favor expanding public programs like Medicaid and CHIP, and harnessing the power of the group insurance market to provide affordable coverage options. Most Republicans, however, favor a more market-based approach that gives the uninsured tax breaks and allows them to use the individual insurance market. But, after years of logjams and disagreements, we were able to come together last year when we created the TAA tax credit. The TAA tax credit merges a market-based tax credit with the affordability of the group insurance market. This proposal simply builds on that progress. With the structures now in place to implement the TAA credit, a new tax credit for the unemployed can easily be incorporated into the new system. Caveats I realize that the TAA tax credit is not a perfect model. And we may need to make some adjustments as full implementation kicks in this summer. For example, we need to ensure that the groups we intended to cover actually have access to coverage. In particular, all workers who had health insurance coverage for 3 months before they lost their jobs should be assured of coverage they qualify for under TAA. I support making the technical change that would provide that assurance. I am also willing to consider other improvements, like additional help for low income workers. But I do not think these adjustments should deter us from moving forward with an expansion of the tax credit. Millions of unemployed workers and their families need our help. And they need it now. All told, expanding the TAA tax credit to the unemployed would provide health insurance coverage for 1.4 million Americans a month who are currently unemployed and uninsured. It's not a panacea. But it's a start. I hope my colleagues will join this fight by helping us pass this legislation, and taking a solid step toward providing quality, affordable health insurance to all Americans.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, as we have worked over the last 2 years to reauthorize the 1996 landmark welfare reform law, I have often talked with pride about the welfare reform program in my own State of Montana. Montana was a welfare reform pioneer, embarking on reform under a waiver before 1996. We have continued to operate a program under that waiver and it has served us well. The number of Montana families receiving monthly welfare checks is down sharply since the early 1990s. Under the waiver program, Montana achieved a participation rate of 84 percent in fiscal year 2002, despite a struggling economy. Montana is a regular recipient of ``high performance'' bonus awards, especially for the key criteria of moving welfare recipients quickly into jobs. An independent study by Abt Associates concluded that under Montana's program ``a Work First model has been implemented effectively in varied rural settings, including Indian reservations and remote areas'' and that it reflects an ``efficient and successful'' strategy. In other words, we're on the right track. However, the waiver expires on December 31. We would like it extended. Given our track record, we think it is only common sense to continue a successful model. Others, unfortunately, have opposed such an extension. It is an issue we expect to be debated during consideration of the full 5 year reauthorization bill. As we extend the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program for 6 months, I want to confirm with the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, that he is willing to work with me to ensure that the welfare reauthorization bill allows Montana to maintain the successful direction of the program it has operated under its waiver. Given his efforts to work in a bipartisan manner, I am optimistic we will be able to reach an understanding on these policies.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Dorgan's effort to overturn the Federal Communication Commission's media ownership rules. I commend Senator Dorgan on his resolve to work with his colleagues in a bipartisan manner to bring forward a commonsense solution to this pressing issue. Every 2 years the FCC is required to review its media ownership rules. This most recent decision to roll back media ownership limitations was the most sweeping in a generation. Was it in response to the American people asking for this reform? No, in fact over 2 million Americans contacted the FCC opposing the rule changes. In my office, I received over 1,000 letters from Montanans opposing the decision. It seems that the FCC turned a deaf ear to the will of the American public. I hear them loud and clear. I support Senator Dorgan's effort for three basic reasons: diversity, localism, and economics. First, if America is to have a vibrant democracy, one where our citizens are free to express their views and have equal accessibility to the news, we as policymakers must protect that right. The FCC's decision allows large corporations that already have considerable clout over what we hear and see to further consolidate. The decision allows TV networks to own more stations reaching more Americans. Even worse, these same stations could own the local newspaper in the same market. We as Americans must have access to diverse news and information. The FCC's decision runs contrary to this axiom and would allow a few large television stations to reach nearly one-half of the viewing public. If the UHF discount is factored, nearly 90 percent of our Nation's households could be covered by one entity. Diversity is jeopardized when one company has this much leverage over what we see and hear. Senator Dorgan has pointed out that localism is being lost to the bottom line. I can not agree more. A generation ago, Americans sat around the radio and listened to local news. We huddled around the TV to watch our local news anchor give us the latest information about our communities. Today, news and information is being portrayed as local, when, in reality, it is being broadcast to us from hundreds or even thousands of miles away. Instead of broadcasting news about our communities from our communities, media companies are broadcasting about our communities even though they are nowhere near us. This is not localism and we should not stand idle to this emerging trend. This decision has the potential to cause job loss in Montana. In Montana we have many ``mom-and-pop'' newspapers and television stations. Typically, these companies serve the rural areas of our State and do a tremendous job reporting about local activities and news. And they are often owned and operated by local citizens living in the communities they serve. And very often they are run on a very tight budget. The FCC's ruling jeopardizes our local stations and newspapers because these new larger companies will be able to squeeze these companies out of the market through advertising revenues with sheer economic clout. With additional leverage over the media landscape, these small, rural companies will find it harder and harder to compete and keep their doors open. As Montana's senior Senator, I will fight to protect our small TV and newspaper owners. While I disagree with a majority of the FCC's decision, I would like to point out for small market broadcasters to survive, they may need the chance to utilize duopolies and other means to stay in business. And while I am concerned about the broad sweeping changes the FCC made, I remain cognizant of the fact that small market broadcasters may potentially need to utilize the very changes we may revoke today, and I will work with my colleagues to find market relief for these small broadcasters when warranted. Over the next several months we will continue to argue the merits of this issue. However, I will only support any legislation that protects diversity, localism, and Montana's small businesses.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to address the ongoing negotiations for a United States-Central America Free Trade Agreement-- also known as the ``CAFTA.'' These negotiations present a couple of unique challenges. First, most of the CAFTA countries are less developed, both economically and politically, than Mexico, Chile, or any of our other FTA partners. This presents challenges to the abilities of the Central American countries--both to negotiate a comprehensive set of commitments and to implement them effectively. Second, these negotiations are on an accelerated schedule. They started in January 2003 and are set to conclude by the end of this year. The limited trade negotiating capacities of the CAFTA countries makes this an ambitious goal. Third, several of the CAFTA countries played a less than constructive role at the WTO Cancun Ministerial. Their participation in the G-21 and the role of that group in precipitating the meeting's collapse raises serious questions about their commitment to trade liberalization. I support comprehensive free trade agreements that create sound market access rules and meaningful commercial opportunities for American farmers, workers, and businesses. And I support, in principle, the goal of reaching such an agreement with the five CAFTA countries. But we need to be realistic. A CAFTA agreement will be politically difficult here--much more so than the recently passed free trade agreements with Singapore and Chile. The issues it raises will be challenging on both sides of the aisle. Next year's vote on CAFTA will also set the stage for the many free trade agreements that are lining up to pass through Congress: Morocco, Australia, the Dominican Republic, South Africa, Bahrain. The list just keeps growing. To keep our trade agenda moving forward, we need a CAFTA that can pass with a large majority. If CAFTA sours the Congress on FTAs we are in for real trouble. With only 4 months left in the negotiations, time is running short. But there is still time enough to push the CAFTA negotiations in the right direction. We can do that by addressing three principal concerns: First, there needs to be a clear acknowledgment by our negotiators that CAFTA presents different challenges than other agreements. These countries have different political, legal, and social structures, and different economies, than any of our existing FTA partners. We cannot simply table the Singapore and Chile texts and say we are done. Not for market access or agriculture. Not for services and intellectual property. Not for environment or labor. One size does not fit all. Second, we need to make sure that this agreement is comprehensive. Taken together, the CAFTA countries are about our 18th largest trading partner. They account for one percent of U.S. trade. So the commercial benefits from this agreement will be modest at best. Absent significant commercial gains, the only way to ``sell'' the CAFTA to our farmers, workers, and businesses, is as a strong model for future agreements. We hear from Costa Rica that they don't want a telecom chapter in the agreement. This is a bad precedent. Similarly, we can't allow ourselves to go too far down the path of ``non-reciprocal'' market access provisions for developing countries, just to get an agreement done. Given their reluctance to tackle hard issues in the FTA negotiations and the recent actions of some of the CAFTA countries in Cancun, I am frankly skeptical about where the CAFTA negotiations are headed. If we, and the CAFTA countries, are not prepared to conclude a comprehensive agreement, we need to ask ourselves if this agreement is worth negotiating at all. Third, we need to do more to address legitimate concerns about environment and labor. Any number of objective sources have pointed out deficiencies in the environmental and labor laws of the various CAFTA countries. And there is widespread agreement including among the CAFTA governments themselves--that these countries lack the capacity to effectively enforce their own environmental and labor laws. Yet that is just what the text tabled by USTR would require them to do. Even as the evidence mounts, our negotiators stick stubbornly to their determination not to go beyond the Chile and Singapore texts. That won't work. For CAFTA, we need a different approach. To date, our domestic politics on environment and labor have been polarized. The CAFTA countries see that and they use it as an excuse not to engage constructively. I want to help break this deadlock. I want to get us all talking about constructive ways to address environment and labor. A workable approach to environment and labor in the CAFTA will do two things. It will help the CAFTA countries overcome their capacity limitations. And it will give assurance that meaningful improvements in environmental and labor standards and enforcement in those countries are occurring. In the next weeks, I plan to release a detailed proposal for addressing environmental issues in the CAFTA. I will give just a short preview today. My proposal combines improvements to the Chile and Singapore environment chapter text with enhancements to the trade capacity building and environmental cooperation programs. In the text, I propose changes that will help build an open and responsive system of environmental regulation in the CAFTA countries. For example, the citizen petition process used in the NAFTA side agreement has helped empower environmental NGOs in Mexico, with positive effects. I think that should be a model for the CAFTA. On trade capacity building, I think we can make this process work better to achieve long-term environmental and sustainable development goals. On the U.S. side, that means creating a mechanism that assures funding for capacity building over the long term. For the CAFTA countries, it means completing the ongoing regional process of setting environmental priorities, and establishing a monitoring system to assure that capacity building is leading to progress toward those goals. I look forward to sharing my detailed proposal in the near future. It does not serve America's trade interests to negotiate imperfect trade agreements simply to put another notch on our belt. I hear people say all the time that America has fallen behind other countries in negotiating FTAs and needs to ``catch up.'' But this is not a numbers game. We must always remember that it is the quality, not the quantity, of our free trade agreements that matters. I hope that I will be able to work with the administration to pass a good agreement with Central America. It is an important region, and this could be a significant agreement. But the Trade Act--and specifically the provisions on labor and environment--must be adhered to. Submitting the same labor and environment text for all agreements--regardless of the situation in that country--is not, in my view, consistent with the Trade Act. If we end up with an agreement that ignores Members' concerns on labor and the environment, I will work hard against it. I hope it does not come to that. I hope that we can work together on an agreement that makes sense and moves the ball forward. And I stand ready to do that.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about next steps for our trade agenda after last week's collapse of the World Trade Organization Ministerial in Cancun. Certainly, the WTO is not dead. In fact, this kind of setback is fairly common in its history. Sooner or later the negotiators pick up the pieces and get back to work. We must and we will continue to try to get the Doha round negotiations back on track. And eventually, I think we will succeed. But it probably won't happen soon. In the meantime, we need to learn from last week's events and adjust our national trade strategy accordingly. In my view, there are two important lessons to be learned. First, we can't count on a sweeping WTO agreement to be an engine of economic growth for our country any time soon. The President has made the stimulative effect of a strong WTO agreement a centerpiece of his plan for economic recovery and long-term growth. If we want to stimulate the economy through trade--and I certainly support that goal--then we need a new plan. Second, the administration needs to rethink its strategy for picking FTA partners. I have heard many times that we need FTA partners who will be allies in the WTO and help the United States move that process forward. Instead, many of the same countries who are negotiating FTAs with us joined the G-21 and helped deadlock the ministerial. So where do we go next? To begin, I don't think we should overreact. Punishing trading partners with whom we have differences of opinion is not likely to be productive in the long term. That doesn't mean they get a free pass. To the contrary, the onus is very much on Costa Rica, South Africa, Guatemala, and the others to take significant, constructive steps right now to show that they take their FTA negotiations seriously and are committed to comprehensive agreements with the United States. Where they have been holding back in FTA talks, they need to start putting more on the table. And if they don't, they should realize we have other countries to look to. At the same time, we need to think hard about how to use trade agreements to create economic alternatives to the WTO. American workers, farmers, and businesses have just suffered a big setback. They will not see the economic benefits of the Doha round for a long time. We need to focus our negotiating resources on bilateral and regional deals that can provide real commercial opportunities in the short term. That means, in picking FTAs, we need to give less weight to foreign policy and more weight to economic policy. Access to the large and vibrant U.S. market remains our best leverage in opening markets around the world. We must continue to use that leverage well. I am disappointed in the outcome of Cancun. Like all disappointments, however, it offers lessons for the future. I hope we will learn those lessons and apply them to our trade agenda as we move forward.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, two years ago today, our world changed forever. At 8:45 a.m., EST, on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, the first World Trade Center was attacked. Shortly thereafter I remember seeing the chaos on the streets in Washington after the Pentagon was hit. I will never forget the sights and sounds from that day. On that day, we lost a feeling of security. And we felt a little exposed. We lost mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, grandparents and grandchildren. But as we united as a nation, we gained strength. What terrorists sought to destroy, what they thought they could topple, is the unbreakable American spirit. ``September 11'' will never again just be a date on the calendar. It is a day that marks the largest attack on American soil in our Nation's history. It was a day of confusion, a day of fear, a day of loss. But it was also a day of heroism--a day of standing together. On the 2-year anniversary, it is important to remember the events and emotions of September 11. As Americans, we are still living in uncertain terms. As Montanans and Americans, we must continue to be determined and steadfast in our dedication to win the fight against terrorism. We must lead an unprecedented effort to eliminate the terrorist networks that threaten our Nation. We must remain committed to defending the rights and freedoms that make us proud to be Americans. From our freedom to express our thoughts and determine our religious beliefs--to our right to openly vote for and elect our political leaders. Today we stand as one to pay respect and express our gratitude to our Nation's heroes: the countless firefighters, the policemen and women, the emergency medical technicians, doctors, nurses, as well as everyday citizens who risked their lives to save others on September 11. I remain dedicated to working together with Congress and the administration to protect America and the principles this Nation stands for and to bring those responsible for the September 11 attacks to justice. On the two-year anniversary of September 11, and in the weeks, months, and years that follow, I call on every Montanan to remember the lessons learned on that fateful day. Remember the solidarity. Remember the countless America flags that flew across the State and the Nation. Remember the generosity with which people donated to charities and volunteered in their communities. Remember the support we received from the international community. While September 11 is a horrific day in our Nation's history, it taught us a tremendous amount about ourselves, as Montanans, as Americans, and as a Nation. We must never forget these lessons.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we are about to vote on the comprehensive Energy legislation. While the Senate has debated numerous aspects of this legislation, there has been a little discussion--not very much, I might add-- of the tax provisions in this bill. Yesterday, Senator Grassley, Senator Bingaman, Senator Domenici and I filed the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2003 as an amendment to S. 14. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a revenue table and the committee report at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment reflects the energy tax incentives reported out by the Finance Committee in April. The incentives in this amendment enjoy broad support, across the political spectrum. These tax incentives are also very similar to those in last year's energy tax bill. In April of last year, they won overwhelming support on the Senate floor. I was disappointed that the conferees did not reach an agreement on the larger energy package last year. I am hopeful that this year, we will see these provisions signed into law. Before explaining the specific incentives proposed in this amendment, let me first take a few moments to address the nature of the energy challenge facing the nation. The last few years have seen energy crises, characterized by energy supply shortages and price spikes. We saw rolling blackouts in the State of California. Energy price jolts affected nearly all Americans. Energy-related disruptions were widespread and severe. Folks back in my home state of Montana have been particularly hard hit. Many people in Montana have to drive great distances just to get to work. And high gas and energy prices raise the costs of doing business for small businesses, farmers, and ranchers, alike. Today, we face continued uncertainty in world energy markets. Earlier this year, energy prices soared to record levels. This was due, in part, to uncertainty over the war in Iraq. And it was also due, in part, to the colder-than-average winter. Natural gas markets raise growing concerns. This May, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan predicted that growing demand for natural gas and limited supplies would continue to raise natural gas prices. Chairman Greenspan warned that this situation could put American companies at a disadvantage relative to their overseas competitors. Since then, natural gas prices have continued to climb. Today, natural gas prices are nearly double last year's levels. A year ago, natural gas prices across the nation averaged about $3 per thousand cubic feet. This year, during the last three days of June, trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange pushed prices up to an average of $5.98 per thousand cubic feet. Natural gas is a key input and cost of doing business in the manufacturing sector. Manufacturing is very energy-intensive. Manufacturers use energy to heat factories, to heat boilers to make steam and produce electricity to run machines. Manufacturing accounts for nearly one-half of the nation's natural gas use. Higher gas prices place additional competitive pressures on these businesses. The National Association of Manufacturers reports that rising energy costs are causing many companies to close their operations. Slowing in the manufacturing sector accounts for much of the current weakening in our economy. And this means that hard-working Americans are losing jobs--high-paying jobs--jobs that often move overseas. Rising natural gas prices also affect American consumers. The Department of Energy predicts that household bills will be about 20 percent higher this winter than last year. Gasoline prices have also raised concerns. Last year at this time, the national average retail price for regular gasoline was about $1.40 per gallon. Earlier this year, prices peaked at almost $1.70 per gallon. Last week's average price was $1.52 per gallon. The Department of Energy expects prices to remain at this higher level throughout the year. This volatility in U.S. gas prices has a sharp economic effect, disrupting businesses and lives. The average U.S. household uses about 1,100 gallons of gasoline a year in their cars. Thus the increase in gas prices over last year means that an average household is paying $132 more a year just for their car's gasoline. And because gas prices peaked at almost $1.70 per gallon earlier this year, the actual increase in household spending on gasoline was much greater. Such a cost difference can have severe effects on businesses. Consider a business that relies primarily on trucking services for shipping its products. For these companies, even modest price volatility can break the business. The outlook for both the gasoline and natural gas markets is not promising. The Department of Energy projects that during the next 20 years, world oil demand will increase by more than 50 percent, from 76 million barrels per day in 2000 to nearly 120 million barrels per day in 2020. The more reliant we are on petroleum products, the more that oil price fluctuations will affect us. And continued political uncertainly and the treat of terrorism will worsen this vulnerability. To address these energy challenges, the Energy Committee has designed the underlying bill. And to contribute to these efforts, earlier this year, the Finance Committee marked up a bill providing tax incentives to support these broader energy policy objectives. Those incentives are reflected in the pending amendment. The Finance Committee amendment consists of a balanced package of targeted incentives directed to alternative energy, traditional energy production, and energy efficiency. The amendment would accomplish its goals in three main ways: First, it would encourage new energy production, especially production from renewable sources. Second, it would encourage the development of new technology. And third, it would encourage energy conservation. Production, technology, and conservation. Let me explain each in turn. First, new production is critical. The level of U.S. energy production directly affects our dependence on foreign sources of energy. If we can increase U.S. energy production faster than demand, we can become less reliant on foreign energy. The opposite, however, is taking place. As this chart shows, through 2020, America's energy use is increasing more rapidly than domestic energy production. As a result, our reliance on foreign sources of energy is increasing. Here is how we address the problem: Through targeted incentives, this amendment would encourage the development of both traditional and alternative sources of production, thereby boosting our overall energy resources. This will help promote American energy independence, which will contribute to both greater economic growth and national security. The use of tax incentives to promote energy development stretches back to the enactment of the income tax in 1916, with tax incentives for the production of oil and gas. And in 1978, we created tax incentives for renewable fuels and for conservation. This amendment would provide tax incentives for the development of renewable resources and alternative fuels. Renewables provide cleaner, safer alternatives to more drilling and more nuclear facilities. This amendment would extend the wind and biomass credit for an additional 5 years. And the amendment would qualify many more sources-- geothermal, solar, plant life, and others--as renewable fuel sources. At the same time, we recognize that the U.S. will continue to rely on oil, gas, and coal production. To further boost production, the amendment would create a new credit for oil and gas production from marginal wells. And the amendment would simplify cost recovery of geological and geophysical expenditures. The amendment would also include several tax incentives to help the oil and gas industry to bring supply to market. While this amendment would thus support exploration and production of more traditional resources, it would also encourage cleaner use of these fuels. For example, the amendment includes several incentives to encourage electric utilities to invest in technologies that will make their coal- fired power plants cleaner-burning and more efficient. This will help make coal a more environmentally-friendly energy source into the future, even as we look for alternatives. Energy sector activities are often front and center in environmental debates. Congress needs to consider environmental concerns when crafting its energy legislation. By carefully targeting our tax incentives, we can encourage more environmentally-friendly activities, such as the use of renewable resources and the transition towards cleaner, more-efficient technologies. Let me turn to the second key element of the amendment: new technology. New technology can be the cornerstone of energy independence and cleaner energy. In the future, electricity, new and alternative fuels, and fuel cells will power our cars. But to get there, we will need substantial investments to create the building blocks for future technologies. Why? Because today's transportation sector is 97 percent reliant on petroleum based fuel. That's right. 97 percent. We need a lot of change to make the transportation sector cleaner and more fuel-efficient. We need to make significant investments to bring about this change. In addition, we need to promote the use of cleaner, more-efficient technologies throughout the energy sector. Such state-of-the-art technologies are often more expensive than more-traditional technologies. Tax incentives help to bridge the gap in cost between these cleaner technologies and traditional technologies. Here is what we do. We create tax credits for the purchase of new technology vehicles. These vehicles of the future will be powered by alternative fuels, fuel cells, and by electric batteries. We also provide tax credits for the purchase of hybrid vehicles, which run partly on electricity and partly on gasoline. What is so great about these vehicles? Well for starters, fuel cell and electric vehicles are zero-emissions vehicles. And hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles can speed us toward the development of these zero-emissions vehicles. And each of these vehicle types can significantly improve fuel economy and energy independence. To make sure, we provide certain tax credits only if the vehicle achieves large improvements in fuel economy. Many new vehicle technologies require new fuels and infrastructure to deliver those fuels. Therefore, the amendment provides tax incentives for the installation of new-technology refueling stations and for the purchase of alternative fuels. We also have developed a number of incentives to promote the use of cleaner-burning, state-of-the-art technologies throughout the energy sector. We create incentives for clean coal. Under the amendment, if you retrofit to use currently available clean coal technology, you are eligible for a production tax credit. If you use advanced technology, you are eligible for both an investment credit and a production credit. Investing in these cleaner-burning technologies in the coal and transportation sectors will have positive long-term environmental effects, particularly for air quality. Other incentives will promote the development of renewable energy technology. These and other tax incentives will help advance further technological development. This will have a long-term stimulative effect on America's economy. The third key element of the amendment is conservation. Just as much as new production, conservation promotes energy independence. It also helps reduce pollution and thereby improve our health and the environment in the longer term. In crafting these incentives, we have struck a balance between production and conservation. Increasing conservation--reducing energy consumption--will help reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy. And tax incentives can be effective means of encouraging conservation. A couple of years back, Economist Kevin Hassett told the Committee that ``a 10 percentage point credit would likely increase the probability of investing--in conservation--by about 24 percent.'' The amendment includes several incentives to encourage businesses and homeowners to use energy-efficient equipment, building materials, and appliances. These tax incentives can make the difference, as such products tend to be more expensive than more-traditional products and materials. As Energy Secretary Abraham said during a tour of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, earlier this month: Americans can help mitigate an expected natural-gas shortage during the coming year by reducing energy use and adopting efficiency measures for heating and cooling homes and offices. The amendment would give a tax credit to reduce the cost of the energy-efficient technology, enabling individuals to purchase energy- efficient refrigerators and other appliances. The amendment would also empower individuals with more complete energy consumption information by encouraging metering devices. These types of metering devices allow people to make more-informed decisions about the use of energy and thereby save energy in their homes. Over time, the benefits of tax investments in energy conservation will reduce monthly energy bills. These cost savings can have the same economic effect as a tax cut--more dollars in the hands of American families. Those are the three key elements of the amendment. New production, new technology, and conservation. The amendment includes other important provisions. One in particular is electric utility restructuring. This is important for investor-owned utilities, municipal utilities, and cooperatives, like those back in Montana. Other provisions address nuclear decommissioning funds and the treatment of cooperatives. Finally, these tax provisions address market inefficiencies by providing a real economic benefit for engaging in more environmentally- sensitive activities. In short, this amendment is good environmental policy and good energy policy. This is a good amendment. It is a package of tax incentives that are important in their own right and that will complement the broader energy bill. It will provide a key component of our emerging environmental and energy policies. I support Chairman Grassley's position that this amendment generally should represent the position of the Finance Committee and the Senate during conference negotiations of the Energy Bill.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Most recently, in 1997, following significant public and private investment and an extensive public comment process, the Lewis and Clark National Forest decided to withdraw 356,000 acres in the Front of any new oil and gas leasing. This was a significant first step in protecting the Front from development, and I wholeheartedly supported it. However, in many parts of the Rocky Mountain Front, oil and gas leases do exist, and they predate that 1997 decision, or they are located on BLM lands. Many of the leases that predate the 1997 decision are located in the Badger-Two Medicine area. That is shown up here on the map, close to the Blackfoot Reservation. And that has been under an administrative lease suspension since 1996, pending review of the Blackfoot Traditional Cultural District. This lease suspension could be lifted at any time now that the Blackfoot Traditional Cultural District has been declared eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. All of these existing leaseholders have invested time and resources in acquiring their leases. I understand that and am sympathetic. Several leaseholders have applied to the Federal Government for permits to drill. In fact, the BLM and the United States Forest Service plan to begin analysis of about four leases in the Blackleaf Area of the front this fall. These leases are subject of the study proposed in my bill. However, history has shown that energy exploration and development in the front are likely to result in expensive and time-consuming environmental studies and litigation. It will take forever. This process rarely ends with a solution that is satisfactory to the oil and gas lessee. There are so many interests involved. For example, in the late 1980's both Chevron and Fina applied for permits to drill in the Badger Two Medicine portion of the Front. After millions of dollars spent on studies and years of public debate, Chevron abandoned or assigned all of its lease rights, and Fina sold its lease rights back to the original owner. It was not worth it. We should obviously be fair to those leaseholders. We want them to continue to provide for our domestic oil and gas needs, and we want to encourage them to find new domestic supplies. But they are going to have a long, difficult and expensive road if they wish to develop oil and gas in the Rocky Mountain Front. My legislation would direct the Interior Department to evaluate for study, non-producing leases in the Rocky Mountain front and look at opportunities to cancel those leases in exchange for allowing leaseholders to explore for oil and gas somewhere else, namely in the Gulf of Mexico or in the State of Montana. In conducting this evaluation, the Secretary would have to consult with leaseholders with the State of Montana, the public and other interested parties. When Interior concludes this study in 2 years the bill calls for the agency to make recommendations to Congress and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on the advisability of pursuing lease exchanges in the front and any changes in law and regulation needed to enable the Secretary to undertake such an exchange. Finally, Mr. President, my bill would continue the current lease suspension in the Badger-Two Medicine Area for three more years. This lease suspension would only apply to the Badger-Two Medicine Area, not the entire front. This suspension will do two things: First, it will give the Secretary adequate time to conduct this study and make recommendations to Congress; second, it will give the Blackfeet Tribe some breathing room to negotiate with the Interior Department about the long-term protection of Blackfeet historic and sacred sites in the Badger-Two Medicine area. That's it. That is all my amendment would do. It doesn't predetermine any outcome. It doesn't impact any existing exploration activities or environmental review processes. It just creates a process through which the Federal Government, the people of Montana and leaseholders can finally have a real, open and honest discussion about the best way to resolve the status of oil and gas leases along the Rocky Mountain front. My amendment is balanced and fair to all parties. We look for ways to fairly compensate leaseholders for investments they've made in their leases if they decide to leave the front rather than waste years and millions fighting to explore for uncertain--and small--oil and gas reserves. And, a lot of Montanans, including me, just don't want to see the front developed, and they will fight to protect it. Here is the alternative: So, developers can wait years, or decades, or most likely never, for oil and gas to flow from the front. Or we can look at ways to encourage domestic production much sooner, in much more cost effective, appropriate and efficient ways somewhere else. Let me quote from an editorial in the Missoulian, a Montana paper based in Missoula, MT, that emphasizes what I hope my bill will accomplish. They said: One of the things we ought to do, as part of setting our national energy policy, is quit squandering our own energy fighting the same old battles that will never yield a single BTU. Montana's Rocky Mountain Front has for too long been a battlefield for just that sort of energy-sapping conflict. . . There are no known reserves of oil and gas in there--just speculation that it might, based on the fact that similar geology north of the Canadian border has proved productive. That editorial concluded by stating that my amendment ``acknowledges the property rights of lessees, but also the reality that they likely will be stymied indefinitely in any attempt to drill along the front. This is a proposal that protects a place Montanans so clearly desire to preserve. And it offers an opportunity to focus public and private- sector energies on actually producing useful energy.'' Montanans have spoken loudly and forcefully on this issue. We don't want any drilling in the front. Montana is a natural resource-rich State and we are proud of our natural resource heritage. Montana has made, and continues to make, tremendous contributions to this Nation's economy through the development of its precious metals like copper, platinum, palladium and gold, through development of its coal, its oil and gas, its timber, and other natural resources. We will continue to do so because that's the right thing to do for Montana's economy and the Nation. But the front is special to Montanans. Because we're also proud of our outdoor heritage, of preserving special places to take our kids hunting and fishing and hiking, just like we did when we were kids. We balance these two Montana priorities all the time. In this case, Montanans determined that the resources that might be under the front just don't justify endangering the front's unparalleled landscape. That's why this amendment is so important, so we can strike the right balance in Montana on the Rocky Mountain Front. Let's listen to the locals. I ask my colleagues for their support.

Mr. BAUCUS. We didn't.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute and express my deepest appreciation for a member of my staff who has served the U.S. Senate, me personally, and the State of Montana admirably. Today is my State director Sharon Peterson's last day. She retires today after more than 22 year of service in the Senate. Sharon's career in public service is the culmination of a lifetime of hard work. Sharon became interested in public service after seeing the late Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield speak in Lewistown. He inspired her to give back to Montana. Which she's been doing ever since. As a Fergus County rancher, along with her husband Garde, she has always been interested in the policies that affect Montana agriculture. And she's considered an expert in the field. Sharon helped organize Montana Women Involved in Farm Economics--or WIFE--in 1975. This led to an appointment from President Jimmy Carter to the U.S. Commission on Alcohol Fuels, where she served from 1979 to 1981. I remember vividly Sharon bending my ear on ethanol. She once traveled to Washington--before she was on my staff--to advocate for increased ethanol production. I remember being late for a Capitol Hill press conference and Sharon literally dragging me by my shirtsleeves to make it on time. She was just like that--always on the move, always aggressive. A former State Chair for the Montana Democratic Party, Sharon was very politically active. And she was a familiar face in Helena during many state legislative sessions. Sharon joined my staff in Billings in 1981. Back then, we didn't have c-span, no e-mail, no Blackberry on Palm Pilots. We didn't even have computers in my State offices when Sharon first started. Only an old roll-paper fax or two. This made it challenging for our State operation. But they worked hard to stay in touch with Washington. Sharon served as my scheduler for 10 years. And she was tenacious in making sure I was on time, which is, as we all here in the Senate know, not an easy task--especially back then. I once did a work day--I work alongside Montanans at least one day a month--at the Stillwater Mine in Columbus. I was having so much fun working in the mine, I didn't want to leave. Sharon, afraid of nothing and against the caution of mine workers, came down into the mine shaft to get me to my next meeting. She once called the kitchen of a restaurant in Choteau and told the dishwasher to get me moving. Sharon helped organize the 1989 Montana Cattle Drive celebrating Montana's bicentennial. Again, I was having so much fun I stayed out on the drive for several days longer than I was supposed to. Sharon drove out to camp and took me to a pay phone to call my Washington staff. Sharon helped on my first Senate campaign, in 1978. She helped deliver Fergus County, which she later realized was a lot harder than one might think. I appointed her my State director 1993. In this role, she was a key advisor to me. She was a strong voice for Montana on agriculture, transportation, rural health and education, trade and natural resources. She fought for rural communities and Main Street businesses. She was a tireless advocate for farmers and ranchers, helping to pass numerous farm bills and helping producers through the drought of the 1980s. Whe organized the first of many trade trips to foreign countries. As State Director, Sharon took great pride in making sure our State operation ran smoothly and served Montanans well. She answered my toll free line for 22 years. That's the 800 number Montanans use to get in touch with me. She was dedicated to case work. She personally helped thousands of Montanans. For many years I have counted on Sharon to educate us on the realities of living in rural areas. She insisted we apply good Montana common sense to everything we do. She believes strongly in protecting the Montana values of doing what's right, common sense, faith, hard work, a strong connection to the land, and community. Her Montana roots run deep. Long ago, we tried to get Sharon to move to Washington. She stayed for two weeks and went home. Montana is her home. She loves our State. I doubt she'll ever leave. Sharon's a rancher. She's a salt-of-the earth Montanan. When I asked Sharon what the best part of the job was she said: ``The ability to help people and make Montana an even better place.'' She did both. I'll miss her. My staff will miss her. The Senate will miss her. And most importantly the State of Montana will miss her. She truly made ``The Last Best Place'' even better. For that, we are eternally grateful. And we wish her and Garde all the best.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. The Energy Tax Incentives Act provides an incentive for new business installations of qualified fuel cells. For those in the future who might be interested in ascertaining the intent of the authors of this provision, the Finance Committee in drafting this language did so with the knowledge that there are various types of fuel cells that convert the chemical energy in fuels, such as hydrogen or methanol, into electrical energy by means of electrochemical reactions. Rechargeable fuel cells can convert electricity into chemical energy that can be stored, and then reconvert that chemical energy into electrical energy when it is needed. Rechargeable fuel cells can provide the capability for storing electricity during periods of low demand and releasing it at periods of high demand. This feature can help stabilize the output from renewable resources, including wind generation, electricity generated from swine and bovine waste nutrients, geothermal power, solar power, and biomass facilities. This language is intended to encourage the provision of electricity through non-polluting means, and to assist in the development of alternate, renewable resources. Our policy is to help develop these and other alternative, renewable resources. As the chairman of the Finance Committee who has worked diligently to develop appropriate incentives for renewable resources, is it also your view that the proposed credit for qualified fuel cells should include rechargeable fuel cells, such as those that store electricity generated from these renewable resources?