Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank my friend from Iowa for his cooperation on this issue, and I look forward to continue our efforts to enact this important energy security legislation. nuclear waste

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I appreciate the work of the majority and minority leaders in putting this agreement together tonight. It sounds as if we will be able to get home for recess. I will say a few words about the Chile and Singapore free trade agreements. Today the Senate begins its debate on implementing the United States- Singapore and United States-Chile Free Trade Agreements. Bringing these bills to the floor this month has been a priority for me, as I know it has been for Senator Grassley. Timely passage will allow these two important agreements to go into effect as planned on January 1, 2004. And passage will user in a new era of enhanced economic ties between the United States and two important trading partners. These are the first bills to come before the Senate under the renewed fast-track procedures adopted last year in the Trade Act of 2002. So before I discuss the agreements and the implementing bills in detail, I want to talk about the events that have brought us here today. One year ago, the Senate passed the Trade Act of 2002 by a vote of 64 to 34. Among other important provisions, the Trade Act gave the President fast-track trade negotiating authority for 3 years, renewable for 2 more. Fast-track--or trade promotion authority, TPA, as it is sometimes called--is a contract between Congress and the administration. It allows the President to negotiate trade agreements with foreign trading partners with a guarantee that Congress will consider the agreement as a single package. No amendments are allowed and a straight up-or-down vote is guaranteed by a date certain. In return, the President must pursue a list of negotiating objectives set by Congress. And he must make Congress a full partner in the negotiations by consulting with Members as the talks proceed. Last year, as Chairman of the Finance Committee, I worked hard to pass the Trade Act and renew the President's fast-track trade negotiating authority. In many cases, fast-track is an absolute necessity for completing new trade agreements. Our trading partners simply will not put their best deals on the table if they know that Congress can come back and change the agreement later. Getting those best offers on the table is critical. It means more jobs for American workers, a level playing field, more exports for our farmers, ranchers, and companies and more choices and lower costs for consumers. That doesn't mean our trade agenda ground to a halt without fast- track. We passed the U.S.-Jordan FTA Implementation Act in 2001 without fast-track--and by an overwhelming margin. And the Clinton Administration began negotiating the Singapore and Chile FTAs without fast-track. I believe, frankly, that we could pass the Singapore and Chile bills without fast-track as well. But having it certainly makes the process run smoothly. That brings me to the two free trade agreements themselves. I have long been a supporter of trade with Singapore and Chile. In 1999, I took a delegation of Montana business people to Chile to press the case directly. I have also visited Singapore with a Montana trade delegation. Even before we passed the Trade Act last year, I introduced legislation to grant fast-track specifically for a Singapore or Chile free-trade agreement. Negotiating these agreements took several years of work, under both the Clinton and Bush Administrations, many negotiating sessions, and hours of consultation with Congress. I am glad that my work and that of so many others has paid off and brought these agreements before us today. Congratulations are due all around for a job well done. These are the first agreements to be held to the new and progressive standards included in last year's Trade Act. By and large, I think the two agreements stack up fairly well against the negotiating objectives set out by Congress. They set a new standard in many areas that is truly state-of-the-art. I will touch on some of the highlights. On agriculture, the Chile FTA provides for tariff-free, quota-free trade within 12 years, with more than 75 percent of U.S. farm products entering Chile tariff-free within 4 years. That's a major achievement. U.S. farmers will have access to Chile that is as good as or better than Chile gave to the European Union and Canada in existing trade agreements. Significantly, Chile has committed to the United States to eliminate its so-called ``price bands'' on certain commodities. These price bands--or variable tariffs--are extremely harmful to our farmers. Chile agreed to eliminate them. The main benefits to my state of Montana will be in improved market access for beef and wheat. Senator Grassley and I worked hard to ensure that Chile will grant reciprocal recognition of U.S. meat inspections. With this important development, Montana's world-class ranchers now have the access to Chile's growing market that they deserve. The agreement will also eliminate the 10 percent tariff that puts American wheat growers at an artificial disadvantage when competing with Canadian growers for sales in Chile. Obviously, Canadians do not pay that. We Americans do, until this agreement is put into effect. On Market access, these two agreements enshrine the principle that all tariffs must eventually go to zero. U.S. policy of entering comprehensive free trade agreements stands in sharp contrast to the practices of some of our trading partners, who negotiate agreements that exclude agriculture or other sensitive sectors. The Singapore and Chile agreements send the right message on market access: countries that are not ready to put everything on the table are not ready to negotiate an agreement with the United States. On services, both agreements offer expanded market access for U.S. services providers and strong transparency rules for service regulations that exceed Chile and Singapore's WTO commitments. The agreements break new ground by using a ``negative list,'' where all services are subject to the agreements' rules unless expressly excluded. Particular achievements include enhanced access to the Singapore market for banking and other financial services, which is important because Singapore is a regional hub for southeast Asia. Enhanced market access for services is critical, because the service sector now provides the majority of American jobs. So expanding services trade means more job opportunities. The agreements include intellectual property rights obligations that exceed WTO levels. They set a high standard of protection for trademarks, copyrights, patents, and trade secrets that will support innovation and our country's creative industries, and they establish a tough enforcement regime for piracy and counterfeiting. The agreements extend free trade principles to electronic commerce-- making sure protectionism cannot take root in the new frontier of trade. Unlike NAFTA, which dealt with labor and environment in side agreements, the Singapore and Chile agreements include core chapters dedicated to these important subjects. It is an improvement. Both agreements incorporate the key Congressional objective that countries commit not to ``fail to effectively enforce'' their labor and environmental laws ``through a sustained or recurring course of action or inaction, in a manner affecting trade.'' This commitment is enforceable through dispute settlement. The agreements also foster cooperative projects to promote environmental protection and worker rights. For example, the United States will assist Chile in building capacity for wildlife protection and resource management and to improve public information about chemicals released by industrial facilities. The agreements establish a secure and predictable legal framework that covers all forms of investment, and investor rights are backed up with dispute settlement procedures. All core obligations of the agreements, including environmental and labor provisions, are subject to enforcement through dispute settlement. Panel proceedings must be open and transparent--that is totally new--including public hearings, public release of legal submissions, and the right of third parties to submit views. For the first time in a U.S. free trade agreement, panels will be able to impose monetary penalties in the first instance. If those monetary penalties are not paid, trade sanctions will be available as a back up--even in environment and labor cases. There are those who see this use of fines as a step back. In my view, it is something worth trying, to see how well it works. The fine mechanism should allow for a greater focus on cooperative problem-solving in resolving disputes. If it doesn't trade sanctions are still available. Only experience can tell us how well this system will work. Based on that experience, we can reconsider a fines-based system in future agreements if we need to. Finally, a word about trade laws. Last year's Trade Act instructed the administration to ``avoid agreements that lessen the effectiveness'' of U.S. trade laws. These agreements reflect that instruction. There are no provisions weakening our antidumping or countervailing duty laws. As in NAFTA, the President may exclude Singapore from a global safeguard remedy in certain circumstances. This exception does not apply to Chile. At the same time, both agreements strengthen the ability of American producers to obtain safeguard relief--if needed--by creating new bilateral safeguards, new textile and apparel safeguards, and a tariff snap-back safeguard for sensitive agricultural products from Chile. Overall--these agreements cover a lot of ground, and they do it well. Does that mean that we now have the perfect text for every future agreement? Of course not. There is always room for improvement in trade agreements. There is no one-size-fits-all solution--whether you are talking about agriculture, intellectual property, environmental standards, or services. That is why I feel strongly that every new free-trade agreement needs to be adapted to the particular circumstances of the partner country involved. Some of the approaches taken in the Singapore and Chile agreements--in environment, labor, and agriculture, for example--simply may not work for countries at different levels of development or with different political and social structure. To some extent, these are issues for another day. But I raise them today as fair warning. I think the consultation process worked well for the Singapore and Chile agreements, but we will need to do even better on the CAFTA, Australia, and other potentially controversial agreements. Otherwise, I believe both the ambitious negotiating schedules and the chances of Congressional approval for future agreements are at serious risk. Now I want to turn to the implementing bills themselves. These bills were prepared by the administration in consultation with Finance Committee members and staff. We have followed the sample cooperative drafting procedures that were used for the NAFTA, the Uruguay Round, and other trade agreements considered under fast-track. I am satisfied with the results of this process. The two bills before us today are very similar to each other and to the Implementation Acts for NAFTA and the U.S.-Jordan Agreement. They are narrowly tailored to include only what is necessary or appropriate to implement the agreements. Where there are differences between the two bills, they reflect different negotiated outcomes in the two agreements. I have worked hard to make sure these draft bills meet two criteria. First, the bills must accurately reflect the agreements. Second, the bills must preserve the prerogatives of Congress over trade policy. One of my main concerns in the Singapore bill has been implementation of the Integrated Sourcing Initiative, or ISI. I have worked to make sure the bill narrowly reflects the purpose of the ISI and does not provide unintended benefits to third countries. The bill achieves that goal by assuring that Congress will have a vote before the list of ISI products can be expanded. I want to thank USTR and Chairman Grassley for working with me to come up with language that does the job. I also had some concerns about whether the ISI could create a loophole in our economic sanctions and global safeguard laws. I appreciate the Administration's willingness to think creatively and come up with language in the Statement of Administrative Action that will help avoid potential problems. Another concern--in both bills--has been the role of Customs. A few months ago, Chairman Grassley and I came to a temporary agreement with the Administration on how to divide authority over Customs between the Departments of Treasury and Homeland Security. A process is in place to review the initial division of labor in the coming year. So it is critical that nothing in these bills changes the current division or supersedes the review process. Again--I appreciate the willingness of Chairman Grassley and the Administration to work with me on this issue. Mr. President, the Singapore and Chile free trade agreements are solid agreements that will create economic opportunities for Americans. With the WTO talks in a stalemate and FTAA talks bogging down, we need to pursue bilateral and regional options to expand trade and grow our economy. These agreements help achieve that goal. A strong vote in favor of these agreements will send all the right messages--to American workers, farmers and businesses and also to our trading partners--that the United States still stands for trade liberalization. That our trade agenda is on track. And that the right kind of agreements will receive broad Congressional support. Mr. President 1 year ago this week, the Senate passed the Trade Act of 2002. This was landmark legislation. It was hard fought--it took the better part of 18 months to write and pass. It was far-reaching--touching on many aspects of our trade agenda. And it had support across the political spectrum--especially in the Senate. Among its many provisions, the Trade Act improved and expanded the Trade Adjustment Assistance program for farmers and ranchers; renewed the President's Fast-Track trade negotiating authority; and renewed and expanded the Andean Trade Preference Act. On august 6, we reach the 1-year mark for all these changes. So now is a good time to take stock of what has been accomplished so far. Have the provisions of the Trade Act been implemented in a timely fashion? Are they working as Congress intended? And what remains to be done? In sum, what I am here to provide today is a report card on the first year of the Trade Act of 2002. I am proud of all the work that went into the Trade Act. But the part I am most proud of is the historic improvement and expansion of Trade Adjustment Assistance. We all know that expanding trade is good for the economy as a whole. It creates new export opportunities for farmers and businesses. It generates employment. It gives consumers more choices and saves them money. But trade liberalization is not always good for individual workers. Inevitably, some will lose their jobs. Trade adjustment assistance is the result of a promise first made to American workers by President Kennedy. He promised workers that when our Government's trade policy results in the loss of jobs, we will help dislocated workers retrain, retool, and learn the new skills that they need to return to the workforce. That promise has been consistently renewed by Congress ever since. Last year's Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act grew out of 40 years of experience with the TAA program. Many of the bill's key reforms were suggested in comprehensive studies of the program's strengths and weaknesses done by the GAO and the Trade Deficit Review Commission. What those reports told us was that there were some ways to make TAA work better. That meant expanding eligibility to cover more workers affected by trade. It meant expanding benefits to assure a more useful retraining experience. and it also meant tightening up the rules in some places to make sure that the program is operating responsibly. The improved TAA program went into effect last November. Primary workers who lose their jobs due to import competition continue to be eligible for assistance. But the new, expanded eligibility rules also make assistance available to secondary workers whose companies lose business supplying inputs to primary firms; and workers who lose their jobs when their companies shift production overseas. Secondary workers are only secondary in the minds of academics who made up the term. The fact is that they suffer the same job loss for the same reason as primary workers. They deserve the same chance to retrain. Now, that is what they get. In another improvement, workers can now get training and income support for up to 2 years. this is a key change from the old program, where income support ran out before training benefits. That led many workers to drop out of training before they were done. Dropping out of training defeats the whole purpose of TAA, so this was a critical fix. Another key fix was the addition of a health care benefit. One of the things that has kept workers out of TAA retraining in the past was their inability to maintain affordable health insurance for their families. Now TAA enrollees are entitled to a 65 percent tax credit toward qualified health insurance expenses while in training. Workers are also benefitting from a streamlined application process. The Trade Act combined the old TAA and NAFTA-TAA programs into one--so workers no longer have to apply twice under different rules. Since last November, the Department of Labor has certified 1,242 TAA petitions, making 133,848 workers eligible to apply for TAA benefits. That includes workers from Stimson Lumber in Libby, MT, and Trout Creek Lumber in Trout Creek, MT. Our lumber industry in Montana has been hard hit by unfairly subsidized Canadian lumber. I hope there will be a long-term solution to this intractable problem that will stop the job losses. I know that getting TAA assistance is not the first choice for any of these workers. But at least it is something--and something much more useful now than it was before. Most of last year's reforms to TAA have been fully implemented and are working well. I want to thank Secretary Chao, Assistant Secretary DeRocco, and the team at the Education and Training Administration for making this priority. Thanks to their planning and hard work, the Department of Labor has done an exemplary job getting the improved program off the ground. Still, the work of implementing TAA reform is not done. There are at least four areas where more work lies ahead. First, the Trade Act required the Department of Labor to process petitions faster--in 40 days rather than 60. Slow petition approvals are a problem that has dogged the TAA program for years. Workers can't get program benefits until their petitions are approved. I am glad to see that processing times are picking up. But they are not down to 40 days yet. I know the Labor Department appreciates the importance of speeding up processing time--and I certainly urge them to redouble their efforts in that regard. Second, the Trade Act created a new Alternative TAA program-- sometimes called ``wage insurance''--aimed at older workers. Instead of enrolling in traditional TAA, these workers can choose to take a lower- paying job and receive a wage supplement from the government for up to 2 years. The goal of Alternative TAA is to encourage on-the-job training--which is usually the best training--and get workers back in jobs faster by making up some of the temporary income loss they may suffer by changing careers. Alternative TAA is scheduled to go into effect on August 6 of this year. I am increasingly concerned that this deadline will not be met. Labor Department officials have assured me that they fully intended to launch this program on time. I don't doubt their sincerity or resolve. So far, however, no draft regulations or program details have been made available. That means the public has not been able to comment on how the program might work. Outreach to potential enrollees cannot begin. And time is growing awfully short to get the States involved, even though they are on the front lines in running this program. Alternative TAA is one of the most important innovations in the Trade Act. If it works, it could provide a whole new model for assisting displaced workers in this country. One year seems like plenty of time to get this program running. I certainly hope it will be up and running by the deadline set by Congress. A third outstanding item is the health care tax credit. A refundable credit was available starting last December. Congress set this August as the deadline for making the credit advanceable. For most people, that is the key to affordability. The tax credit has been off to a somewhat shaky start. That is understandable, given that we are trying something completely new here. In order for the tax credit to work, each state has to provide at least one group coverage option for eligible workers who do not have COBRA coverage. As of now, it appears that about 22 states will have their coverage options up and running by August. That means that in more than half the states, some qualified workers will not be able to use their tax credits to by health insurance--unless they have COBRA. That's not something the Federal Government can ultimately control. It is up to the States to provide retraining workers with qualified options. But I certainly encourage Treasury, HHS, and DOL to redouble their outreach efforts to get the slower States to pick up the pace. The Trade Act of 2002 for the first time created a TAA program especially for farmers and ranchers. Farmers and ranchers are affected by trade a little differently from manufacturing workers. They don't tend to lose their jobs and go on unemployment insurance. Instead, they can face sudden sharp falls in commodity prices due to trade. These price drops affect their income, but not necessarily their employment status. TAA for farmers has been a long time in coming. After several failed attempts, history has shown that trying to shoe-horn farmers and ranchers into a TAA program designed for manufacturing workers doesn't work. So Congress created a TAA program that better fits their needs. The eligibility trigger is different--it is based on the effect of trade on commodity prices. But the purpose is the same--give farmers a chance to retool, retrain, and adapt to import competition. I am very proud of this program. It has the potential to do some real good in Montana and other States where farmers work hard to make it in a global economy. And it can help bolster support for trade liberalization in the agricultural community. USDA has done some solid thinking on how to put this program together. I commend them on their outreach to Congress and to the private sector during the planning stages. But the effort got off to a very slow start. Even though things are back on track now, they are running way behind schedule. Congress set aside $90 million for this program in fiscal year 2003 and told USDA to get the program operational by March of this year. That didn't happen. I know that USDA is close to finalizing the regulations so they can get TAA for Farmers up and running. I urge Secretary Veneman to do everything in her power to make sure that the program gets started in time to use the funds that Congress intended for our farmers in this fiscal year. What happens next? The first step is getting all the changes to TAA up and running. I hope that we are in the home stretch on that. Then we need to start tracking results. Seeing how well the new, improved program is working. To that end, Senator Grassley and I have jointly asked the GAO to do an assessment of how well TAA has been working in the first year under the new law. We have to wait long enough for meaningful data to be collected. So that report is due out next summer, and I am looking forward to the results. In the meantime, I will be keeping my eye on TAA. A few important issues to watch will be training funds: Was the increase in the Trade Act enough to meet increased enrollment?, and performance evaluation: Are DOL and the states cooperating to generate good data for tracking program participation and outcomes? One last item for future action is TAA for Firms. This program, which operates out of the Department of Commerce, provides technical assistance to small and medium-sized companies that face layoffs due to import competition. The companies themselves chip in half the money to fund their adjustment plans. And they pay back the Federal share in tax revenues and foregone unemployment services when they succeed. For many years, TAA for Firms has been chronically underfunded. A backlog of approved but unfunded adjustment proposals is building up in every State. In order to begin reducing this backlog, in the Trade Act of 2002, Congress reauthorized TAA for Firms at an increased funding level of $16 million annually. The President's budget for fiscal year 2004, however, proposes funding at only $13 million. This is not enough, and I view it as unacceptable backsliding by the administration. I encourage our appropriators to fund this program fully at the authorized level of $16 million. Aside from funding, I think the biggest threat to the effective operation of the TAA for Firms program is a pending proposal to change its management structure. This program works well under a small centralized management in Washington, supplemented by the excellent work of 12 regional Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers. The program is not broken and does not need to be fixed. That is why I oppose the department's plans to break the Washington office up into seven separate offices scattered around the country. It seems like an inefficient use of government resources that will only complicate oversight and jeopardize consistent decision-making. This is not a partisan issue--it's just good government. That is why I have introduced S. 1120--a bill to move the FAA for Firms program to a different part of the Commerce Department, where it can continue to be centrally managed. The bill currently has 12 co- sponsors, and I urge my colleagues to support it. In addition to TAA, there were, of course, several other very important provisions in the Trade Act of 2002. Most significantly-- Trade Promotion Authority. After a lapse of 8 years, we were able to renew the fast-track procedures that allow the President to submit trade agreements to Congress for an up-or-down vote with no amendments. It is these very procedures that bring us to the floor today to debate, and ultimately vote on, the Singapore and Chile FTAs. Some people say our trade agenda was stalled--or even dead--before we passed TPA. I strongly disagree. We completed China and Taiwan's WTO accessions. We passed AGOA, the Jordan FTA and the Vietnam trade agreement. We know from experience that good, strong trade bills with bipartisan support can pass the Congress even without fast-track. But fast-track makes this more likely. And--particularly when we are negotiating complex agreements with large groups of countries in the WTO or FTAA--there is just no other way to get our trading partners to put their best deals on the table. They won't show their bottom line if they think Congress can come back and renegotiate the deal. So getting fast-track renewed is an important accomplishment. It lasts for 3 years--extendable to 5. I hope we use it well. I want to see us use fast track to negotiate trade agreements that serve the commercial objectives of our farmers and businesses. Agreements that will create jobs for our workers and real value for consumers. These are the kinds of agreements that will build domestic support for our trade agenda. With that support, our progress on trade will become self-reinforcing--and we will not need to worry about another lengthy lapse in fast-track. For the last few months I have been working--together with Congressman Dooley and others--to reach out to business and agriculture groups and others interested in trade to hear their priorities for commercially meaningful trade agreements. I plan to continue this process and to consult closely with the administration on what I learn. That leads me to just a few comments on consultation. The bills before us today are the first to be considered under the fast-track procedures approved last year. And one of the key refinements in the bill was to beef up the consultation process between the administration and Congress. I want to thank Ambassador Zoellick and his staff for the efforts they have put into these consultations. Given the nature and pace of negotiations, there is always a balance to be struck between timely and meaningful consultation with Congress and quick turnaround by our negotiators. I hope they will continue their efforts to improve Congressional access to draft negotiating documents and keep the lines of communication open even when the pace of negotiations gets frantic. I also want to commend both USTR and Senator Grassley and his staff for the drafting process for the Singapore and Chile bills. It was very cooperative. This is the way the informal drafting process is supposed to work under fast-track. I think it sets a good precedent as new agreements come down the road. Finally, I want to turn to another part of the Trade Act--the renewal and expansion of the Andean Trade Preferences Act. Early reports slow rising exports from ATPA countries to the U.S. in some of the new categories to receive benefits. Reports from USTR and the ITC indicate that ATPA continues to play a critical role in economic diversification and drug eradication efforts in the Andean region. As always, that doesn't mean our trade relationship with the region is trouble-free. For one thing, U.S. companies have a number of unresolved investment disputes with Andean countries. Even with the pressure USTR could bring to bear prior to ATPA renewal, we were not able to resolve them all. For example, Ecuador continues to deny VAT payment credits that it owes to American companies--despite continued promises at the highest levels of government. Advancing the trade agenda through new agreements is important--but so is making sure that our trading partners are living up to the commitments they have already made. Congress will be looking at ATPA again in a few years, and we need to keep our eyes on the region. The Trade Act of 2002 was the most significant and far-reaching piece of trade legislation to come through the Congress in 14 years. I am proud to have played a central role in shaping it. Overall, my report card on implementation is pretty positive. As implementation on TAA moves forward, I intend to continue monitoring the administration's efforts and the impact that the program has on eligible workers. I also plan to continue working on trade legislation that advances our agenda of job creation and economic growth. There will be plenty of opportunities ahead.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from California, Senator Boxer, for the statement she just made. For some, it is not easy to stand up on the floor of the Senate and oppose the nomination of a judge nominated by the President of the United States. For others, it is not quite as difficult. But for the Senator from California, I admire her for the clarity of her thinking and the position she has taken because, frankly, I agree with it. All of us in this body took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The main framework of that Constitution is the separation of powers with its powers allocated equally among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. When our Founding Fathers wrote that Constitution, they were unsure about what to do about judges. They debated. One of their proposals was that the Congress send the names of potential judges to the President and that the President choose from among those judges which one the President wanted, and that is the one that would be named. It was a very difficult issue to resolve. Why? Because the two branches of government would be deciding which people would have lifetime appointments serving in the third branch of Government; that is, the judicial branch. Why is this so important? It is so important because judges must be impartial, and they must be fair. They have a very difficult job of trying to interpret laws and interpreting the Constitution. We as Americans feel much safer and we feel much better the more we know that the judges in the district courts, the courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court are people of the highest caliber. Let me tell you that one of the greatest privileges I believe we have as Members of the Senate is to recommend the names of potential judicial nominees to the President of the United States. I have been able to do that several times. It is very much a privilege to me personally. In the exercise of that privilege, this is the process I followed. I think it is one that honors the position of the judge in either district court or the United States Courts of Appeals. I asked in each instance seven or eight people in my State of Montana--Republicans, Democrats, it didn't make any difference, some lawyers, some law professors, businesspeople, people who I respected as some of the best and smartest and most able in my State--to come up with three names, one for the district court and one for the circuit courts of appeal. I asked them to give me the three very best people in my State. I don't care whether they are Republicans, Democrats, whether they are known as conservatives, whether they are known as liberals, just give me the best. And they did. I sat down with each of the three and interviewed each of the three for several hours. I can tell you it was a very difficult decision because they are tremendous people. Finally, I decided after a lot of thinking about all of this to recommend to President Clinton the name of Don Malloy. Thankfully, he nominated Don Malloy to the Federal District Court in the State of Montana. He is a terrific Federal judge. Why do I say terrific? I say terrific because both the plaintiffs bar and the defense bar think he is just super. He is tough, he is fair, he runs that court well, and he works very hard. Both plaintiffs and defense attorneys think he is very fair and a very good judge. That says a lot to me. I did the same in the other case. When we had the opportunity to recommend to President Clinton the nominee for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, it was the same process. I asked for the best. I didn't care whether they were Republicans or Democrats. It didn't make any difference. Who were the best? The group I selected came back with three people--all just terrific people. You would be very proud of all of them, Mr. President. Again, I had a hard time deciding which one was the best. But I made a decision. That person now serves on the Ninth Circuit. His name is Syd Thomas. He has the reputation of being one of the best judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It is very important that we get the best judges. These are people who are nominated and serve for life. That is extremely important. It is important so they can maintain their independence. It is also important since once they are confirmed, they are there forever. We self-destruct. As Senators we self-destruct every 6 years. House Members self-destruct every 2 years--some Governors 4 years and some 2--to go back and face the people, as we should go back and face reelection. Should we be continued in these offices, if we seek them, or not? It causes us to be very close to the people. In some cases, we are more attuned to the political currents that flow in our respective States. Not so judges. Judges are not to be attuned to political currents. They are to be independent, to be impartial, to go beyond politics, to do what is right according to what the law says and what the Constitution says. That is who we want. This is no light matter. One of the strengths of America is our independent judiciary. That is not true in most other countries. Most peoples in the world live where the continent might be under a system where the judiciary is not independent of the executive branch, not independent of the legislative branch; rather, it is under the thumb of one or the other. They are not independent. That is one reason why this country has grown so strongly, why it has prevailed, and why we have risen so quickly and so far. It is because we have an independent judiciary, by and large, of judges who are extremely capable men and women. It engenders confidence so when people go before a judge they have the feeling this person can be fair and this person can be honest. They may not like the outcome, but at least it is a fair process. At least the President or the Governor didn't put his thumb on this judge and it wasn't a political decision. It was a decision a person made on the merits. I say this because we as Members of the Senate have a higher obligation in passing upon judges than we do of other nominations-- certainly of other executive branch nominations. When the President nominates somebody to be Treasury Secretary or somebody to be Secretary of State, or someone to be Defense Secretary, those are important jobs, very important. But they are executive branch nominations, and they are people who will be working for the President, and by and large the President should have people with whom he can work. We should, in my judgment, not have quite the same standard for executive nominations as we do for judicial nominations. For judicial nominations, the standards should be of the highest. What should they be, roughly? They should be people who have the highest integrity and honesty. They should be people who are extremely competent, who know the law, and people who basically don't have an ax to grind or an ideological ax to grind; that is, they are basically in the mainstream. America is a mainstream country. We are not a country, hopefully, of ideologues, of people who have axes to grind, of people who want to work with each other and who live with each other. We should have judges who reflect America and in fact set the highest standards for America. In my opinion, it is not even a close question. It doesn't even begin to be a close question. Some of the nominees before the Senate do not rise to those standards. They don't begin to. Some do. Most do. But some don't. Where they don't, we in a sense should also forget the politics and just do what is right. Is this nominee a person so qualified that he or she should be a district court judge or a judge on one of the courts of appeal? That should be the test. It is easy for us to decide what is best and what is not best. We should not push pell-mell to follow the political flood and rush on either side of the aisle just because the President appointed the person, or because a group came out against their nominee we should or should not confirm that person. This is a high solemn obligation we have, Mr. President. I urge all of us to take this responsibility under the Constitution, the Constitution which we all swore to uphold, very carefully. Mr. President, turning to another matter, I would like to speak about an amendment I intended to offer today on the Energy bill that I think promotes a good commonsense solution to an issue that I think is very important to my constituents in Montana, and that is, protecting Montana's magnificent Rocky Mountain Front. What is the Front? The Front, as we call it back home, is one of the largest and most intact wild places left in the lower 48 States. We call it the Front because that is kind of what it is; it is a front. Anyone driving across the State of Montana, driving westward, first encounters open plains and prairies; and then, suddenly, out in the distance, the Rocky Mountains, the Continental Divide just seems to jump out of the plains--this huge mountain range--and that is what we call the Eastern Front. That is the eastern side of the Rocky Mountains which kind of juts out from the plains. It is magnificent. It is one of the largest and most intact wild places left in the lower 48 States. This map I have is not a good map to show the beauty of it. But, rather, this is a map that shows where the Front is with respect to the Blackfoot Indian Reservation, the oil and gas leases, and some of the wilderness areas there. But to the north of the Front is an area here. This is the Blackfoot Indian Reservation. Glacier National Park is over to the northwest on this map. The area shaded in red is called Badger- Two Medicine. It is call Badger-Two Medicine in large respect because the Blackfoot Indian Reservation has ancestral rights and claims. It is a very special area to the Blackfoot. It is also a gorgeous area. I have hiked it many times. I think it is a very special place in the United States of America. This is sacred ground, Badger-Two. It is the area on the map that is shaded red located next to Glacier Park. In January 2002, portions of the Badger-Two area, known as the Badger-Two Medicine Blackfoot Traditional Cultural District, were declared eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. If you turn just south of the Badger-Two, the Front includes about a 400-square-mile strip of national forest land and about 20 square miles of BLM lands. The BLM lands are scattered in through here, as shown on this map. These include three BLM Outstanding Natural Areas. As I mentioned, they are located right through this area shown here. Now, the Front harbors the country's largest bighorn sheep herd--the country's largest--and the second largest elk herd in the entire country. That is on the Front. The Rocky Mountain Front supports one of the largest populations of grizzly bears south of Canada and is the only place in the lower 48 States where grizzlies still roam from the mountains to their historic range on the plains, just as they did when Lewis and Clark came across. Actually, they crossed right up through here. Marias Passway is over here. So Lewis and Clark, when they came up, saw that area. Actually, they came the south. One of the groups came across Marias Pass. Because of this exceptional habitat, the Front offers unsurpassed hunting, fishing, and recreational opportunities. Sportsmen, local landowners, local elected officials, hikers, local communities, and many other Montanans have worked for decades to protect and preserve the Front for future generations for nearly a century. Now let me show you a couple of pictures of the Front so you get a sense of the feel for this magnificent landscape. This is a photograph of Ear Mountain. It is supposed to be shaped like an ear. If you have a good imagination, maybe you can see the ear. Frankly, a couple summers ago, I hiked up to the top of the ear with a good friend, Rick Graetz, and another friend, Jim Scott, and Jamie Williams, and it was just a gorgeous climb. When you get to the top of the Ear--this picture, of course, was taken a little more in the wintertime, but at the top of the Ear, if you look east, you can see forever. It is wonderful. We feel very strongly about the Front. The majority of Montanans believe very strongly, frankly, that oil and gas leases on the Front and throughout Montana's Rocky Mountain Range just don't mix. We think that because the habitat is too rich, the landscape too important to subject it to the roads and the drills and the pipelines and the industrial equipment and the chemicals and noise and human activity that come with oil and gas development. Let me show you a couple for photos of the Front before I proceed. This is typical--and I mean typical. I am not exaggerating. This is what Montana looks like. It is what the eastern Front looks like. It is gorgeous. Here is another picture. This gives you a sense of the pristine nature of the area. It is special. We are known as the Big Sky State. And when you are out here, you can understand why we call Montana the Big Sky State. Those are some of the photographs. To give my colleagues some idea of what the area might look like if oil and gas were developed, I show you a picture of extensive oil and gas development along the Canadian Rocky Mountain Front in Alberta. This is the Front. If you were to continue from Montana up north, this is what it would look like--with the roads and the development of the oil and gas leases. So we believe such development is not warranted and it is not needed in Montana. The administration recently completed an inventory of onshore oil and gas reserves on Federal lands at five basins in the interior West, including the Rocky Mountain Front, which is part of the Montana overthrust belt. The administration's study found that the overthrust belt area contains the smallest volumes of potential oil and gas resources of all five of the western inventory areas. In addition, the administration's study concluded that in reality the vast majority of Federal lands in the interior West are available for leasing with few, if any, restrictions; that is, there are not many restrictions in the vast majority of the Federal lands of the interior West. And that is, we are not talking about the Front, we are talking the interior of the United States. Although a large percentage of Federal lands in the Front are currently unavailable for leasing, many of those lands are unavailable in the Front because they lie under Glacier National Park, they lie under Indian lands, and already established wilderness areas. These areas comprise much of the Federal land in the Front. As shown on the map, here is the Scapegoat Wilderness Area, Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, Great Bear Wilderness Area, Glacier National Park, Badger-Two, and the Blackfoot. So much of this is already restricted. So not only is the Front relatively poor in terms of oil and gas reserves, many of those reserves, by congressional mandate, Executive order or treaty, will never be available for leasing. So there is no oil or gas bonanza on the Rocky Mountain Front. My amendment builds upon local conservation efforts in Montana that started nearly a century ago; that is, back in 1913. It also builds on previous congressional initiatives championed by former Members of the Montana congressional delegation, such as Congressman Pat Williams and the late Senator Lee Metcalf. I ask unanimous consent that a time-line of these efforts be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this year will mark the 7th year of drought for some parts of Montana The current drought has been disastrous, not only to agriculture producers, but also to the surrounding rural communities. When producers are hurting, everyone in that region huts. Main streets, die, schools close, and rural towns dry up. The economic costs are immeasurable, but the social costs are also substantial. Domestic abuse increases; suicide rates rise; People's lives are turned upside down. Drought is not something we can ignore. In Montana, agriculture accounts for over half of our economy. It's our backbone--both economically and socially. We can not ignore the drought. According to the National Drought Monitor, nearly one-third of the United States is currently experiencing ``moderate'' to ``exceptional' drought. Nearly one-third of the United States is experiencing the devastating effects of drought. Yet despite the colossal economic and social costs of drought, we do not have a national drought policy. The last prolonged drought of substantial magnitude in the United States was during the 1930s. While not all of us were around during this time, we have all heard about the dust bowl years. The drought coincided with an economic downturn and rural areas were devastated. Banks closed, schools closed, main streets disappeared. Millions of people migrated to urban areas. The effects of the current drought are frighteningly similar. We are experiencing an economic downturn, schools are closing, main streets are disappearing. Following the dustbowl years, the Federal Government enacted the first proactive response to drought with the creation of the Soil Conservation Service--now the Natural Resources Conservation Service-- to stress soil conservation measures. It's time to expand this proactive approach and create a national drought policy. We need a national drought policy and we need it now. I am pleased to introduce the National Drought Preparedness Act with my colleague Senator Domenici of New Mexico. The National Drought Preparedness Act accomplishes four main objectives. This bill: (1) creates a national policy for drought, (2) improves the delivery of Federal drought programs, (3) provides new tools for drought preparedness planning, and (4) improves drought forecasting and monitoring. We have waited too long for this bill. Drought is occurring now and it will occur again. It's time to create a proactive, preparedness approach to drought and this bill will do just that.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this year will mark the 7th year of drought for some parts of Montana The current drought has been disastrous, not only to agriculture producers, but also to the surrounding rural communities. When producers are hurting, everyone in that region huts. Main streets, die, schools close, and rural towns dry up. The economic costs are immeasurable, but the social costs are also substantial. Domestic abuse increases; suicide rates rise; People's lives are turned upside down. Drought is not something we can ignore. In Montana, agriculture accounts for over half of our economy. It's our backbone--both economically and socially. We can not ignore the drought. According to the National Drought Monitor, nearly one-third of the United States is currently experiencing ``moderate'' to ``exceptional' drought. Nearly one-third of the United States is experiencing the devastating effects of drought. Yet despite the colossal economic and social costs of drought, we do not have a national drought policy. The last prolonged drought of substantial magnitude in the United States was during the 1930s. While not all of us were around during this time, we have all heard about the dust bowl years. The drought coincided with an economic downturn and rural areas were devastated. Banks closed, schools closed, main streets disappeared. Millions of people migrated to urban areas. The effects of the current drought are frighteningly similar. We are experiencing an economic downturn, schools are closing, main streets are disappearing. Following the dustbowl years, the Federal Government enacted the first proactive response to drought with the creation of the Soil Conservation Service--now the Natural Resources Conservation Service-- to stress soil conservation measures. It's time to expand this proactive approach and create a national drought policy. We need a national drought policy and we need it now. I am pleased to introduce the National Drought Preparedness Act with my colleague Senator Domenici of New Mexico. The National Drought Preparedness Act accomplishes four main objectives. This bill: (1) creates a national policy for drought, (2) improves the delivery of Federal drought programs, (3) provides new tools for drought preparedness planning, and (4) improves drought forecasting and monitoring. We have waited too long for this bill. Drought is occurring now and it will occur again. It's time to create a proactive, preparedness approach to drought and this bill will do just that.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jeff Klein and Matt Linstroth of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the day.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object, would the Chair inform the Senate of the present parliamentary situation?

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask if the Senator could perhaps yield until after we complete morning business. It is possible others may want to speak on the subject set aside for this morning during morning business.

Mr. BAUCUS. How much time would the Senator like?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it has been 48 days since the Senate passed the Lincoln-Snowe bill to provide child tax credit to the families of 12 million children. Twelve million, Mr. President, is not a small number of children in America. The House then passed a different child tax credit bill. Thirty-five days ago, the Senate appointed conferees to work out the differences between the two bills--35 days--and the conference has yet to hold its first meeting. On July 25, just 2 business days from today, many families will begin receiving checks for the increased child tax credit, but millions of families will find their mailboxes empty. Why? Millions who hoped for such a credit will not receive it. Why? Because the conference has not met and the House has not agreed to the Senate provision. The Lincoln- Snowe bill, however, would ensure that these families are not left behind. In 2 working days, the House plans to adjourn for the remainder of the summer, not addressing this important question. We must, rather, send a bill to the President before that time so that millions of children can receive the benefit. Just a few years ago, in 2001, the President brought a tax reduction proposal to Congress. The proposal was based upon the premise that taxpayers across the board were paying too much of their income in taxes. The President included the working poor, citing extremely high marginal rates. At the time, the working poor faced marginal rates above 50 percent, among the highest marginal rates faced by any taxpayer. What does that really mean? That means that for the working poor, with their marginal rates above 50 percent, for every extra dollar that a person in that category earned, more than half of that would be taxed, and less than half would then be kept by the taxpayer. That is the effect of the high marginal rate of the working poor. The President's economic advisers called this an ``egregious problem'' in our Tax Code. On the campaign trail, candidate George Bush pledged that, ``lowering these barriers to the middle class'' was one of his top priorities. I worked with the President in 2001 to reduce the marginal rates for working Americans. I think he was right. The bill we enacted included marginal rate cuts for taxpayers across the board. It also included two provisions specifically targeted at reducing the marginal rate for low- income workers. First, it reduced the lowest marginal rate; that is, the tax paid on the first dollar of taxable income from 15 percent to 10 percent. Second, it made the child tax credit partially refundable for working families. Currently, the child credit is refundable up to 10 percent for a family's income above $10,500. In 2005, this amount is set to increase to 15 percent, up from 10 percent. The marginal rates for working taxpayers are less than they were before the 2001 bill was passed, and they will be less in 2005. I believe, frankly, we should do more. Under current law, taxpayers in the lower income brackets face marginal rates as high as 46 percent, as represented by this chart. That is, under current law taxpayers in the lower income brackets face marginal rates as high as 46 percent. This chart shows that for a married couple with two children, with an income of $27,000, the marginal rate is 46 percent. Compare that with the marginal rate of higher income Americans. For a family with two children, a family of four, with $100,000 of income, the marginal rate is only 28 percent. That is, the Government takes 28 cents of the next dollar earned by a family in the $100,000 income bracket. Correspondingly, it rises as the income rises but not much, and still not nearly as high as a working family with $27,000 total income. Their marginal rate is 46 percent. It is much higher than the marginal rate is for higher income Americans. So let's take an example. A family of four making $27,000, that is about 150 percent of poverty. What happens to that family? If they earn an additional dollar of income, they lose 21 cents of the earned-income tax credit they receive. They lose it because of the phaseout of the earned-income tax credit. They pay payroll taxes of 15 cents if we include both shares of the payroll taxes, as most economists do. And they pay 10 cents in Federal income tax. This adds up to a marginal rate of 46 percent for a family of four earning $27,000. This is how it is broken down: Income tax, 10 percent; payroll tax, 15 percent; and because of the way the Tax Code works, and the earned-income tax credit phases out, that amounts to a 21-percent marginal rate that taxpayer has to pay. So for every additional dollar this family makes, they keep only 54 cents. Forty-six cents on every additional dollar made goes to the Federal Government. We are not even talking about State taxes. We are just talking about Federal taxes. So State taxes could be a lot more. How does this compare with other taxpayers? This family making $27,000 faces a higher marginal rate today than a similar family making $100,000, $150,000, or $200,000 as shown by the same chart shown earlier. It is very clear that lower income persons pay higher marginal tax rates. In fact, this family has a marginal rate that is higher than the wealthiest taxpayers in America, if my colleagues can believe that. If we are supposed to be encouraging people to work, logically lower income Americans would have a lower marginal rate because we want to encourage people, particularly in that category, to earn an extra dollar. But our Tax Code is so perverse it causes the reverse result. It is far higher than the corporate rate of 35 percent. Just think of that. I do not think many people know that. That is, lower income working families, families with a $27,000 income, pay a higher marginal rate than corporations do. I do not think most Americans know that, and if most Americans did, they would think that is not right. Hence, many of us are today urging the Congress, urging the other side of the aisle in particular, to work with the House and pass a child tax credit in the remaining 2 days before the House adjourns for the summer recess. Senators Lincoln and Snowe deserve a lot of credit. They have led the effort to reduce the marginal rates for working families. They began in 2001 when they fought to ensure that low-income working families would be able to receive a refundable child credit, and they are now fighting to ensure that these families receive the full child tax credit today. I will explain how the refundable child credit reduces the marginal rate for working families. Let's take a family of four making $22,000. Without the refundable child credit, their marginal rate would be 36 percent. The current credit, which is 10 percent refundable, brings their marginal rate down to 26 percent. In 2005, the refundability of the child credit will increase to 15 percent. This family's marginal rate will then go down to 21 percent, from 26 percent. We have all heard the argument for immediate tax relief: If tax relief is good enough in a few years, it is good enough today. We have heard it constantly. It is a constant refrain in this body. This was the theory behind President Bush's jobs and growth package, which accelerated marginal rate reductions for millions of taxpayers, including those making $100,000, $200,000, or even $1 million. For a family making $100,000, the marginal income and payroll tax rate was reduced in that package from 30 percent to 28 percent. For the family making $200,000, the rate was reduced again from 38 percent to 36 percent, and for millionaires the rate was reduced from almost 42 percent to 38 percent. The provision that would have reduced the marginal rate for low- income working families, that is the increase in child tax credit refundability, was specifically excluded from the final bill. If marginal rate reductions are good enough for the wealthy today, are they not good enough for the working poor? The answer from the Senate was a resounding yes. The Lincoln-Snowe bill to reduce marginal rates for the working poor immediately passed the Senate almost unanimously. The marginal rates for the low-income working families are still too high. Passing the Lincoln-Snowe bill is an improvement. This improvement will provide additional incentives to work and earn the extra dollar, which is basically what tax reduction is all about, and it would shrink what the President has called barriers to the middle class. We have 2 working days left, 2 days to convene this conference, work out our differences, send this bill to the President; 2 days to ensure that low-income working families receive the same tax relief that is promised to the rest of America's families, and 2 days remaining to ensure we fix this problem. Even President Bush agrees this is an egregious problem in the Tax Code. I strenuously urge us to put politics aside and do what is right and convene this conference committee. Let's get this passed in the next 2 days before the House adjourns for the summer. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided on both sides.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am awaiting the arrival of my colleague from New York to offer the amendment. It is his amendment and I am a cosponsor. Pending his arrival, I will make a couple of statements. I do not have the amendment with me. I am pleased to join with the Senator from New York, essentially offering an amendment that provides additional funds to increase the number of border personnel protecting the more than 5,000 miles of border we share with Canada. It goes without saying that protecting this great Nation is the most important responsibility facing the Congress and the administration. Certainly enhancing border security is critically important in the wake of September 11, 2001. The need for increased security against threats from outside and within our country is evident. Over the years our borders have seen a rise in the number of illegal aliens trying to gain entry into our country. These individuals are using whatever means possible to get into this country, some to seek a better life, others to traffic in illegal and harmful activities, and some with even more nefarious goals. Clearly, we must do more to control and prevent illegal entry into the United States. How do we do that? What is the best way? One, clearly, is to invest in advanced surveillance technology and communication systems that allow enforcement personnel to monitor the flow of individuals entering this country. All personnel involved with border security and law enforcement need to be able to communicate with each other effectively. Currently, it is very difficult for them to do so. Illegal entry is usually gained somewhere along the vast 5,000-mile border between border stations. Sometimes it is at the border stations, but often it is in between them, in the mountains, in the plains, and the unobserved areas. In the mountains of northern Montana, for example, electronic sensors have recently picked up 1,000 crossings between Canada and the United States. Not one arrest was made from any of those sensor signals. What were those crossings? Who were they? What were they? Could it be wild animals, backpackers, illegal aliens? No one knows. Why? Because of the lack of personnel and proper equipment, we can only guess. We do not know what type of activity the sensors are picking up and what is crossing our borders. The security of our Nation affects everyone. My example points out that the State of Montana faces unique issues regarding homeland security. Montana has the longest border with Canada in the lower 48 States. We border three Canadian provinces with a northern border of roughly 600 miles. Controlling the traffic of people coming in and out of the country through Montana is difficult, to say the least. People working at the border stations or near the border stations are extremely frustrated because of inadequate personnel, because of the inability of personnel to communicate with each other--regardless of what agency it might be. It might be DEA; it might be Immigration; it might be Customs. There are lots of agencies and each has different communications facilities. They have a hard time talking with each other. In addition, there are very few personnel along that entire border. Along with the sheer length of the border, the topography of the region makes patrolling it a terrific challenge. A lot of my colleagues have spoken to me and said how much they like visiting Montana because of the beauty of the State, particularly Glacier Park. It takes a lot of work to hike over those mountains and it is very difficult to protect that border with Canada. Then in eastern Montana, as far as the eye can see, are vast plains and it is very easy to cross the border from the United States through Montana. Glacier National Park is located in the northwestern corner of our State. It crosses over to the Province of Alberta and the Province of British Columbia. It has sharp mountains and rugged peaks; it is wilderness but also an area that requires increased resources to monitor because it is so difficult to monitor that part of the border. The U.S. Park Service is responsible for the security of our national parks. The National Park Rangers patrol the 40 miles of the international border that lies within Glacier Park with little increases in funding for park security. Park services are already strained, our national parks are already strained for resources, and we need a vast increase in them, in my judgment. With the additional terrorism threat that faces our country, we have additional pressure for more resources to protect our borders. I believe homeland security is of the utmost importance and our border agencies, law enforcement, and the National Park Service need a lot of help. If we do not increase the technology, if we do not increase the personnel needed for border security, we will certainly continue to see more individuals who will enter our country through the remote areas of the border, particularly in my State of Montana. We don't like it. We are very concerned. There are also drugs coming down because of the inadequate number of personnel and inadequate equipment the current personnel have. Our country must do more to increase the number of border personnel to prevent this unwanted traffic. Finally, we need to continue working with our neighbor to the north, continue working with Canada to secure our Nation's northern border, their southern border. We can do this with coordinated law enforcement operations, through intelligence sharing and infrastructure improvements but, again, this cannot be done just on the basis of words. It can only be done with effective manpower, with proper technology, and with good communication systems. It is clearly inadequate today. I am pleased today to join with Senator Schumer to offer an amendment that will provide an additional $200 million to increase the number of border personnel. This will enhance our ability to conduct inspections of people and goods entering our country. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. This is not an idle statement; this is very important. If the Presiding Officer, who comes from a State which also borders with Canada, were joined with me in explaining to our colleagues just how important it is to protect that border and how easy it is to cross that border undetected--I am certain in the home State of the Presiding Officer it is almost as easy as in my State of Montana let alone other Western States. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I guess it will be opposed, but, frankly, $200 million for additional border security I think is an investment very well worth it. It is an investment we must make. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is a great amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. The committee certainly understands that many states will not license a hospital as operational until the facility is constructed. I believe the committee's intent was to ensure that approvals with respect to the construction of the hospital (i.e., building permits, etc.) have been secured by June 12, 2003. The lack of a license to operate would certainly not prohibit a hospital, which is deemed to be ``under development,'' from the purpose of the statute.

Mr. BAUCUS. Yes, it was clearly not the intent of the Senate Finance Committee in adopting this amendment to apply the prohibition to specialty hospitals that already exist. Nor was it the intent of the Committee to apply the prohibition to those facilities which, meeting specified criteria, are under construction currently.

Mr. BAUCUS. Yes, again, in adopting the amendment, it was the understanding of the Senate Finance Committee members that this provision would not apply to facilities which, provided they meet certain criteria, are already under development.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Burma sanctions bill. This bill is the result of a collaborative effort between Senators McConnell, Grassley and myself. When first introduced, the bill would have imposed sanctions without an opportunity for congressional review. I was concerned that Congress would simply pass a bill, and then forget about Burma. I think that is the wrong approach when it comes to sanctions. Senator Grassley and I worked hard to ensure that Congress would have the opportunity to revisit this issue every year. The House went even further, by requiring an annual vote, plus a 3-year sunset. Now, make no mistake about it, the actions by the dictatorship in Burma are unacceptable. The arrests and treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi are deplorable and cannot be tolerated. Yet as is so often the case when we debate the merits of international sanctions, the question is not whether to punish Burma's ruling regime; the question is how to do so effectively. We have learned through our own experiences that unilateral sanctions simply don't work. They rarely destabilize the oppressive regime that is the target of the sanctions. Instead, they only hurt the people-- both in the target country and even here in the United States. Unfortunately, we have also seen how, once a sanctions policy is in place, it is very difficult--no matter how ineffective the policy is, to terminate it and find a better solution. So, how do we deal with this dilemma? The answer is found in a simple appeal to common sense. First, we must actively seek the cooperation of our allies. Multilateral action is essential if the policy is to be effective. Second, we must give ourselves a chance to review and revise the policy if it isn't working. That is what this bill does with Burma. It imposes sanctions. It also encourages the president to work with our allies in the region to build a collective response. And I understand our allies are considering sanctions. This bill also requires Congress to revisit the issue every year. If the policy is working, then we can renew it. But if it isn't working, then we can terminate it and try a new policy. This legislation will keep the dictatorship's feet to the fire. It will create regular incentives for them to change. It is just this sort of common-sense approach that is needed with other U.S. sanctions, particularly against Cuba. By any honest assessment, our embargo against Cuba--now in its fifth decade--is a total failure. The U.S. is alone in pursuing this failed policy, yet politics prevents us from reassessing it. Thus, the Cuban embargo has become institutionalized. And the fight to end the embargo, even though ending it makes so much sense, has become a difficult, uphill battle. We do not want that to happen to the Burma sanctions. We want the people of Burma to enjoy true democracy and freedom. And we want to pursue the policy that will help them achieve this. So we will try sanctions. But if they don't work, and if we are not joined by our allies in this cause, then Congress will revisit this issue in a year. In the coming weeks, many Members will be pressing for action to reform Cuba sanctions. I hope that today's debate on Burma highlights the inconsistency of our sanctions policy, and that we can apply a common-sense approach as we move forward on other sanctions issues. I now would like to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I join with Senator Mikulski in her comments expressing concern about the United States role in Iraq, the safety of our troops in Iraq, and how proud we are of our troops. I urge the administration to do what is necessary to restore morale. The best way is to do the right thing by our troops, make sure they are strongly supported and, even more fundamentally, rethink our position in Iraq: What is our policy? What are we attempting to accomplish? Then encourage many more of our allies, both in the Arab world and other parts of the world, to join the United States. This is a problem that will only be resolved with more thoughtfulness and more direct candor about the nature of the problem and working closely with our allies, both Arabs and others. We should also focus a little bit more on terrorism generally rather than get diverted, as we seem to be, in specific countries. It is extremely complex, but there is building concern in the United States about United States policy in Iraq. I join those who believe we should focus more on terrorism around the world. This requires the cooperation of a lot more countries around the world to be successful. I hope we can accomplish that.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Montana has been proud to send many of our young men and women over to serve in the Gulf these past few months. As their stories come back to us, we see more clearly the personal side of this war. We see the bravery, the commitment, and the courage of these men and women. Our Armed Forces remain engaged in a complicated, difficult effort, and they continue to carry out their mission with the type of professionalism and compassion that you could expect only from the most dedicated and finely trained individuals. As I have done before, I would like to take the time this morning to acknowledge a few of the many Montanans we have serving in the Gulf region. It is important that we let them know just how proud of them we are. I have recently received news that Marine Cpl Chad M. Taylor, of Kalispell, MT, has been awarded the Purple Heart. Chad was wounded last month while serving somewhere between the Iraqi cities of Baghdad and Tikrit. He was riding in an amphibious personnel carrier when it was hit by two rocket-propelled grenades. He has sustained shrapnel wounds in his legs, and he told his folks it would probably take ``a couple of surgeries'' to put him right. Chad has not been the only member of his family serving over in the Gulf--his twin brother Bobby is also a marine. The brothers joined up the same day, almost 4 years ago now. Before Chad's injury, both of them were stationed for a time in Baghdad, camping in separate Saddam palaces a few blocks apart. We hear they have seen each other fairly regularly, and once, passing in the steets of Baghdad, were able to exchange a high-five. The boys' father says it is some relief to know that Chad is now safe, though wounded, but with Bobby still in the field, he remains ``on pins and needles.'' We are all praying for Chad's quick recovery and Bobby's safe return. Hopefully, it will not be too long before this strong family can be back together again, celebrating the service and success of their wonderful boys. LCpl Mike Tobey is also among those who have been wounded in Iraq. Mike's legs were broken in multiple places when a shell struck his troop carrier during the fighting in Baghdad. How's this for bravery and commitment? When interviewed by reporters he said, ``I'd give anything to be back with the squad right now.'' Mike's mother Julie lives in Whitefish, MT, and Mike's bravery has really brought the human side of this war into the lives of local residents. Mike has in fact become quite a local media sensation, indicating just how deeply support for our troops runs in Montana. Maj Patricia Camel Kelly of Ronan, MT, is currently serving as a surgical nurse in the 86th Combat Area Hospital in Iraq. She is working at an Enemy Prisoner of War camp, an experience she says will make her more confident as a family nurse practitioner when she returns to civilian life. Major Kelly was previously a community health nurse with the Indian Health Service in St. Ignatius, and has a masters in community health nursing from Tulane University. She entered the Army in 1987, when her son Richard was a junior in high school, and while I am sure she is correct when she says she is still adding to her skills, it is hard for me to try to picture something this woman couldn't handle. Major Kelly was one of the first tribal members to graduate from the Montana State University School of Nursing and is now one of many Native Americans serving overseas. She is of Pend Oreille descent and a member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. Her mother Alice Camel is a tribal elder. After Major Kelly returns from Iraq, she plans to serve out the remainder of her time in the Army in Fort Lewis, WAF, and then move back home to the Flathead Indian Reservation. Her husband Isaac Kelly a retired Army master sergeant and her son Richard Janssen are among those eagerly awaiting her safe return. Native Americans are probably serving in the highest percentage of any population in the country. Certainly there is strong evidence of this patriotic commitment to service in Montana. A good example is the Rocky Boy Tribe, which has 30 members on active military duty, despite a population of less than 3,000. Among those serving in the Gulf from Rocky Boy are two sisters, Crystal and Tashina Russette, both in the Navy, and Jason Torivio serving aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. Army CPL Angela Duran, mother of two small children and sister to a veteran of the first Gulf war, has now also been deployed. Her mother Linda will care for her two sons, ages 3 and 5, while she is away. Ninety-one members of the Blackfeet Reservation are serving in the Armed Forces currently, with roughly 40 of them deployed for the Iraq war. Among those representing the Blackfeet Nation in the Gulf are PFC Carl Logan Kipp, part of the Army's Psychological Operations, and PFC Ivan Redhorn, recently deployed to the Gulf. Abe Birdrattler is serving in the Army's 3rd Division as a medic. Two of the Tucker boys, Brian, of the 101st Airborne, and his older brother Ronald, an Army specialist, and PFC Aretha Bullplume are also among those serving from the reservation. These tribes have a strong history of community support for their members of the military, and they have been continuing that tradition with letters to their soldiers and care for their families. It feels good to know that when these troops come home, they will be receiving the kind of honor and respect from their community that all our troops deserve. PO3 Travis Woodward of Superior, MT, has been serving aboard the U.S.S. Valley Forge and lending his expertise to an Australian ship as part of a cooperative coalition effort. Prior to this conflict, he has been part of a boarding team searching for drugs aboard foreign ships and enforcing United States sanctions against Saddam Hussein's regime. Travis's time in the Navy is coming to an end this June, when he will be able to return to his wife and son back home in Montana. It will be a pleasure to see him rejoin his family and the Superior community. PFC Frank Valenti is serving near Baghdad in the Transportation Division of the Army's 3rd Cavalry Division. He seems to be posterboy of what the Army can do to transform the life of a young man. From the description his mother gives, it seems Frank wasn't up to much after high school, kind of a sleep late, party hard kind of guy, and then he decided to turn his life around. Joining the Army has really allowed him to start making something of himself. He married his longtime sweetheart and is serving his country and accomplishing things he can be proud of for the rest of his life. It is night and day from a few years ago for him, and it shows you a little bit about what kind of an institution our military is and what it means to become part of something larger than yourself, what it means to serve your country as Frank is doing. Frank's brother Nathan Valenti is an Army pharmacy specialist serving in Germany, and I know their mother is very proud of both her boys, as she has every right to be. We are proud of them too. Army CPT David Michael Gercken is a veteran of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm of the first Iraq conflict and is now serving in Iraq again. He is the father of three children, with a fourth child due July 1, when David will still be in Iraq. David was raised in Great Falls and went on to attend college and met his wife at the University of Montana in Missoula. David is a Montanan through and through, and just before his deployment he sent me this statement via his parents. I would like to share it with you: Montanans have always shown a pioneering spirit and a dedication to democratic principles and the defense of freedom. As an Army officer I am very proud to take that same spirit with me when I deploy next week with the 1st Armored Division. GO GRIZ!!!! A father, a veteran, and a proud, dedicated protector of this country and our values. SSG Neil Bohne of Frenchtown, MT, joined the Air Force in 1998 and was deployed in Turkey in 1999 as part of Operation Northern Watch, which patrolled the no-fly zone in northern Iraq prior to this conflict, and later helped set up the first ever Coalition Life Support Shop in the former Soviet Union. He is now deployed to the 379th Expeditionary Wing in Iraq. His letters home have been reprinted in the Missoulian, and he has developed quite a local following. We know the support of hometown folks is very important to him, as it is to all our troops out their putting their lives on the line so far from home. We want to make sure he knows how proud we are of the job he and the rest of our forces have done and are continuing to do as they work to secure the peace and protect the freedoms we hold so dear. LT Paul Tripp of the U.S. Navy is another man with a large hometown following. Paul's grandfather, Clarence, moved to Missoula from Minnesota with all nine of this brothers and sisters in the 1940s. The Tripp family has been a large and wonderful part of the community ever since. Lieutenant Tripp has been serving the war effort as a code-breaker stationed in Saudi Arabia. He holds two master's degrees, in human resources and business management, and is considering pursuing a doctoral degree after he retires from the service. It is no surprise that a man this committed to education would have a tendency to make insightful comments, and I still return to a few lines from e-mail that were printed in the Missoulian, I guess about a month ago now. I would like to share his words with you all because I feel he really is able to articulate that which so many of us feel: As I travel and talk to people around this region, I want you to know how absolutely swelled up with gratitude and pride you should be to call yourselves Americans. There are men and women from every corner of our country serving you. There are women who have left their children, married couples who are at different bases serving at the same time, men who are single fathers that have left their children, and every variation in between. People are sleeping on cots, showering in trailers and walking in the sand \1/4\ mile to go to the bathroom--all in the name of freedom. We have such adaptable unselfish willing citizens over here that at times I am speechless from humility. Nickolas Kyle Neilan is currently serving aboard the USS Alonzo, a guided missile Aegis cruiser. Nickolas is a Big Fork and Missoula native who has remained in touch with his home even while nine time zones away, reading the Missoulian online and corresponding with folks back home via e-mail. His service has been filled with long stretches at sea without a chance to dock and escape the confines of the ship, but like so many other of our servicemen and women, he bears these hardships calmly, simply doing his job and doing it well. He is the kind of young person we Montanans are proud to call one of our own. Another Montanan serving at sea, PO3 Benjamin Taylor, is home now. He and Jason Torivio from Rocky Boy, whom I mentioned earlier, and Joe Keller of Harlowton serve aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, part of a battle group that, until this past Friday, had been at sea longer than any other carrier group now on duty. They docked in San Diego briefly and are now on their way back to their homeport in Everett, WA. Joe Keller was able to debark in San Diego and fly home to Billings/Logan Airport, where he was met by his wife and two children and other family members. Benjamin Taylor is a graduate of Sentinel High School and the University of Montana--he and his family have long been a strong part of the Missoula community, and I understand a large Missoula contingent was planning to make the trip to meet the ship dockside. As the sailors aboard the Lincoln are arriving home, other Montanans are just arriving in Iraq, ready to pick up the task of security and rebuilding, now that the task of toppling Saddam's regime is done. Many of these newly deployed soldiers are members of the Army Reserves who have been called up to active duty for this conflict. The 495th Transportation Battalion from Kalispell, MT, just shipped out a couple weeks ago, and the 889th Transportation Battalion, also primarily of Kalispell, shipped out last week. The task before them is complex and difficult. It will test their training and their character, but we know they are up to the job. They have our confidence, and they are in our prayers. Reservists are those who train on weekends a couple weeks a year, remaining ready for duty while still holding down civilian jobs and often raising families. When reservists are called up, they are asked to leave those jobs and families, to drop everything and heed the call to duty. Their employers are also asked to contribute, by granting flexibility to accommodate their training schedule, and of course to accommodate their sudden departure in time of conflict. The 125th Ordnance Battalion from Billings, MT. has contacted me with a short list of soldiers they feel are deserving of special recognition for serving in this special capacity. I hope hearing their stories gives you an idea of what kind of sacrifices so many of our reservists are gladly making in this conflict--the members of the 495th, and the 889th, and members from other companies around the State. SGT Stacy F. Wright of Billings is enroute to Iraq to serve as a legal NCO. She has served as an active-duty member of the military before, but this time is leaving behind her husband, two children, a ranch, and a job as an administrative assistant in the Internal Revenue Service in order to serve her country. SGT JJ Hutzenbeiler of Billings is now serving in Uzbekistan as a supply NCO, leaving behind his wife and job as a loan officer at 1st Interstate Bank. SPEC Jesse C. Ryan is a student at Montana State University in Bozeman and was called up to serve in Iraq as a chemical Specialist. SGT Jack E. Walker of Billings is enroute to Iraq as a motor sergeant. Jack has also served active duty before, but now must part with his wife, two children and small farm to do so. SSGT Norman Richey, also experienced as an active-duty soldier, is enroute to New Mexico as a supply NCO. He leaves behind a job as a correctional officer for the New Mexico Department of Corrections. SGT Chris Alamond is serving in Iraq as a communications NCO, having been called away from his wife and job as a mail handler for the U.S. Postal Service. CAPT Nadine Elmore of Ekalaka left behind her husband and job with Montana State Human Resources to serve as a finance officer in Kuwait. LTC Robert E. Brekke of Bozeman is now a provost marshall in Kuwait. When he is home, he serves as the owner/manager of Mountain Motor Supply. LTC Teresa Otto is serving in Iraq and Kuwait as an anesthesiologist--the same job she has temporarily left at St. Vincent Hospital. MSG Timothy Stavnes is serving in an undisclosed location as a special operations intelligence chief. Master Sergeant Stavnes has served as a traditional active duty soldier and been called up to active duty from the Reserves several times before. When he is in Billings, he is the assistant fire chief for the city, serving his community when not serving his country. I would like to conclude my talk this morning by mentioning a Montanan serving overseas who is not a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine. Maggie Bigelow of Columbia Falls is serving in Germany as the financial manager of the enlisted club at Ramstein Airforce Base. She is also the saving grace of wounded Montanans like Chad Taylor and Mike Tobey, who have been flown to Ramstein for treatment. As one of those soldiers' mother's put it, she is an angel without wings. She has been keeping our boys in touch with their families, bringing them pizza, gifts, and most importantly, her smile and company. When one of our Montana servicemen is hurt and a long way from home, it is unbelievably reassuring to know she is there at his bedside, looking after him. Maggie's father served as a marine in Vietnam, and her mother is a longtime member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars auxiliary. Her sister Brooke Brennan is serving in Kuwait as a staff sergeant in the Air Force. Maggie has grown up in a family dedicated to service, and the size of her heart is an inspiration to us all. I hope hearing a little bit about these people helps folks understand the depth of commitment we have from our armed services--what they are willing to do in service of their country. It is not easy to drop everything and go out and serve when your country needs you, but these men and women do just that, whenever they are needed. I, for one, am incredibly grateful for that.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to return to the basics of what this bill is all about. Let's keep our eyes on the ball. We are working here to make a meaningful improvement in health care for seniors. We are working to bring prescription drug coverage to Medicare beneficiaries. Too many seniors do without drug coverage. The Congressional Budget Office reports that roughly a quarter of Medicare beneficiaries have no drug coverage. Ten million people. They have to pay all of their drug costs out of their own pockets. They pay full price. Lack of coverage means poorer health. Seniors who get along without drug coverage get fewer of the healing benefits that prescription drugs provide. CBO reports that when seniors do not have drug coverage, they fill about a quarter fewer prescriptions, on average, than do those who have coverage. But whether seniors have coverage or not, they still need a significant amount of prescription drugs. CBO says that in 1999, Medicare beneficiaries who had coverage filled an average of 32 prescriptions a year. Those without coverage still filled an average of 25 prescriptions a year. These prescriptions cost seniors a good deal of money. The average Medicare beneficiary spends about $2,500 a year on prescription drugs. That's a big number--especially as the median income for all elderly households in 2001 was less than $19,000. Those costs are rising fast. CBO projects that the average Medicare beneficiary's drug costs will rise at a rate of more than 10 percent a year over the next decade. That is far faster than the cost of living. That means that without this legislation, seniors will need to devote larger and larger shares of their income to paying prescription drug bills. So we are here to try to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. And we are here to extend coverage to the roughly 10 million seniors who have no prescription drug coverage at all. We are here to try to end seniors' painful choice between filling prescriptions and buying food. Seniors should not have to choose among the necessities to maintain their health. We are here to do something about that today. Let me review what this bill would do. This bill would make available prescription drug insurance to all seniors. This bill would ensure that 44 percent of Medicare beneficiaries-- those with the lowest incomes--would have truly affordable prescription drug coverage with minimal out-of-pocket costs. For these lower-income seniors, with incomes up to 160 percent of the poverty level, copayments would never exceed 20 percent of the cost of drugs. Let me take some examples. Let's look at what this bill would do for beneficiaries with what will likely be average drug spending of $3,155 in 2006. For seniors with average drug expenses, even with higher incomes, this bill would save them $1,677. That is a 40 percent savings in out- of-pocket costs. The savings would be greater for lower income seniors. For an individual making $14,000 or a couple making $19,000 a year, with average drug spending, they would save $2,842. That is a 90 percent savings in out-of-pocket costs. For an individual making $12,000 or couple making $16,000 a year with average drug spending, they would save $2,842 in out-of-pocket costs. That would be a savings of 96 percent in out-of-pocket costs. This bill would thus ensure that those who have been least able to receive the healing benefits of prescription drugs would now be able to do so. Millions of people would have a better quality of life. Lives would be saved. This bill would create a strong Government fallback. Seniors would have access to at least two private plans for a prescription drug benefit, or the Government would provide a standard fallback plan. If there is not true competition, then traditional Medicare would provide a fallback. The Department of Health and Human Services would continue to oversee these plans. The plans would operate within tightly controlled limits. This bill includes strong consumer protections. And this bill does not tilt the playing field. This bill does not make private plans a better deal than traditional Medicare. This bill would make a nearly $400 billion expansion of a major entitlement program. This is a historic opportunity to make a fundamental change for the better for millions of Americans. In so doing, this bill would finally do something that the overwhelming majority of industrialized nations have already done. This is a broad compromise. This is not a bill of the left or a bill of the right. This is a weaving together of approaches, in the finest American tradition. This is a historic opportunity. Let us finally seize that opportunity, and improve health care for our seniors. Let us finally seize the opportunity, and bring prescription drug coverage to all.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we are about to vote. I want to thank all Senators for their tremendous patience. It is not an easy task. I particularly thank the chairman of the committee but also all Senators. Second, I thank the staff who have not had any sleep in the last two or three weeks. I don't know how they are still standing. A lot of people have been working on this bill. My thanks. I know I speak for all the Senators in thanking all the staff that worked so hard to help achieve this end.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the major fatal problem with this amendment is it dispenses with the underlying principle of the underlying bill. That is universality. We are, in the legislation before us, providing for universal benefits. This amendment violates that principle by saying no, not across the board for Americans but, rather, it introduces a whole new means testing provision for catastrophic. I just think it fatally violates the spirit of the legislation we are about to pass.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, two points: One, this amendment is totally new. We have not seen the language. We have been asking for the language for days. It has been filed in various forms. This is new language. The Senate has no idea what is in this amendment. We saw it for the first time maybe 15, 20, 30 minutes ago. It is impossible to know what this amendment does. Point No. 2, essentially what we can tell by a cursory glance at the amendment is the amendment enters a whole new concept in Medicare that has not been done before, and that is means testing. It means tests those at the catastrophic levels. I do not think we want to begin to go down that road tonight. It makes more sense to stay with the underlying bill which essentially gives a 44-percent rate to those beneficiaries with lower income. The problem is it does not help, as our bill does, up to catastrophic, and then catastrophic is means tested. That is not the right thing to do, certainly at this hour after looking at it 30 minutes ago.