Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to make clear that I have not heard one substantive reason against this, not one. Rather, the argument against this is the House is gone. We all know the House has gone because they do not want to vote on this issue. They planned to have the Senate bring the debt limit up at this time. The House planned to leave before the debt limit came up. They planned that so they do not have to vote on the issue. The other side plans to vote down all amendments so they do not have to go back to the House. It is a gimmick. It is a game. There is not one word of substance as to why we should not have a smaller debt ceiling rather than a full year. I think it is time to call it as it is and explain what has happened here. What I explained is what is happening.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend, the chairman of the committee, Senator Grassley, for making that statement. We both agreed. Those are provisions that are very important, particularly to certain parts of America. These are provisions that we have been working on in the past to try to get included in law, and I very much appreciate the chairman of the committee making that statement to that effect just now. I join with him and look forward to working with him as we get these measures passed.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, on behalf of my self and Senator McCain, the Middle East Trade and Engagement Act of 2003. For more than a thousand years, the most important trade route in the world ran through the heart of the Middle East. The Silk Road that linked the Western world with China wound its way through what is today Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Turkey, and a host of other countries in the Middle East. Merchants who traveled either direction along the Silk Road brought with them not only their goods for sale, but also their ideas and culture. In this way, all peoples from the West through the East were enriched with both money and knowledge. But in modern times, the countries of the Middle East have retreated from their historically critical role in world trade. Today, few countries in the Middle East engage fully in the global trading system. Many are not members of the World Trade Organization. Many have high barriers to international trade and investment. Their economies have suffered as a result. A declining share of world trade and investment has led to decades of deepening poverty and slow job creation in the countries of the Middle East. At the same time, they have been experiencing population growth rates among the highest in the world. That means that a growing number of young people will be entering the workforce to look for jobs that don't now exist. The United States cannot stand idly by as a generation of young people in the Middle East grows up to discover that there is no meaningful work for them, and that they have no way to provide for a family of their own. The problem will only get worse if we don't act now. As the rest of the world continues to liberalize its trade, the countries of the Middle East will only be left further behind. That is why we're today introducing the Middle East Trade and Engagement ACt of 2003. Under this Act, countries in the Middle East will be given preferential access to the U.S. market. This is not a one-way street. Countries must meet certain conditions. They must support our war on terrorism, and they must pursue economic reforms. Only then will they reap the benefits of this legislation. Our proposal can have an immediate impact. Opening our markets to the countries of the Middle East will encourage higher levels of trade and direct investment in those countries. And we know it can be a success because if has worked before in other regions. Our bill is modeled on successful programs that increased economic development in sub-Saharan Africa and the Andean countries. This legislation will do the same for the countries of the Middle East. Increased economic development in that region means jobs for the young and the unemployed, some of whom may otherwise be recruited by our enemies in the war on terrorism. By helping to strengthen these economies, we also increase the number of people who can afford to purchase American products and services. That means increased export opportunities for American businesses and more jobs for American farmers and workers. President Bush recently announced an initiative to create a free trade area for the United States and the countries of the Middle East by the year 2013. This is a good long-term goal. But the people in the Middle East need our help now. They need jobs now, not ten years from now. The Middle East Trade and Engagement Act would bring the benefits of trade to the people of the countries in the Middle East in a much shorter time. It would also help those countries make the economic reforms they'll need to make before a free trade area can become a realistic option. And just as trade in the time of the Silk Road allowed the exchange of ideas and culture as well as goods, increased trade now can strengthen ties between the United States and the countries in the Middle East. Now, in the Aftermath of the war in Iraq, the whole world's attention is focused on the Middle East. It is the ideal time for the United States to engage these countries in a comprehensive way and help bring them more fully into the global trading system. I hope that my colleagues will join Senator McCain and me in cosponsoring this important legislation, and I hope we will have a change to consider this in the Finance Committee this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Reorganization Act. The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms program assists hundreds of mostly small and medium-sized manufacturing and agricultural companies in Montana and nationwide when they face layoffs and lost sales due to import competition. Qualifying companies develop adjustment plans and receive technical assistance to become more competitive, so they can retain and expand employment. The program is very cost effective. It requires the firms being helped to match the Federal assistance with their own funds, and it pays the government back in Federal and State tax revenues when the firms succeed. Currently, TAA for Firms clients receive assistance preparing petitions and adjustment plans from twelve Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers, which are Commerce Department contractors. Program and policy decisions are made by a small Headquarters staff in Commerce's Economic Development Administration. This organizational structure is efficient and has served the program well for many years. For example, TAA for Firms is helping Montola Growers from Culbertson, Montana, to develop cosmetic applications for its rapeseed oil. The program is helping Pyramid Mountain Lumber of Seeley Lake, MT to upgrade its production process and train employees to use new process controls. And it is helping Porterbilt Company of Hamilton to expand its product line. Last year, in the Trade Act of 2002, a bipartisan majority of Congress voted to reauthorize this important program for seven years and to increase its authorized funding level. The program seemed headed toward some years of smooth sailing. But it turns out that is not the case. For reasons unrelated to TAA for Firms, EDA is about to move all its Headquarters program operations to its six regional offices, with a policy office in Washington. For TAA for Firms, that means clients will get the same local services from the TAACs, but decisions will be made in six regional offices and the national policy office--a net increase in layers of government. The likely result is more personnel needed to run the program, less centralized and consistent decision making, and less accountability--all without any likely improvement in customer service. The organizational structure of TAA for Firms is not broken and it doesn't need to be fixed. This bill preserves the existing efficient management structure of the TAA for Firms program. Instead of moving the program out of Commerce Headquarters entirely, it simply moves the program to a different part of the Commerce Department. That way it can continue to be centrally managed with a minimal staff. Under this bill, administration of TAA for Firms will move from the Economic Development Administration at the Department of Commerce to DOC's International Trade Administration. Relocating the program to ITA makes a lot more sense that dividing it up among seven different EDA offices, for several reasons. First, ITA has experience running this program, which was located there prior to 1990. Second, relocating TAA for Firms to ITA will result in fewer layers of government and more centralized and accountable program management. It also creates synergies by allowing better coordination of the TAA for Firms program with other trade and trade remedy programs administered by ITA. And it enhances the ability of the Finance Committee to carry out its oversight responsibilities for this program and for trade policy in general. I want to thank Senators Rockefeller, Bingaman, Dayton, and Murray who have joined me in co-sponsoring this bill. This is a simple matter of good, sensible government and I encourage more of my colleagues to lend it their support. I urge Chairman Grassley to take up this bill in the Finance Committee as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, on behalf of my self and Senator McCain, the Middle East Trade and Engagement Act of 2003. For more than a thousand years, the most important trade route in the world ran through the heart of the Middle East. The Silk Road that linked the Western world with China wound its way through what is today Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Turkey, and a host of other countries in the Middle East. Merchants who traveled either direction along the Silk Road brought with them not only their goods for sale, but also their ideas and culture. In this way, all peoples from the West through the East were enriched with both money and knowledge. But in modern times, the countries of the Middle East have retreated from their historically critical role in world trade. Today, few countries in the Middle East engage fully in the global trading system. Many are not members of the World Trade Organization. Many have high barriers to international trade and investment. Their economies have suffered as a result. A declining share of world trade and investment has led to decades of deepening poverty and slow job creation in the countries of the Middle East. At the same time, they have been experiencing population growth rates among the highest in the world. That means that a growing number of young people will be entering the workforce to look for jobs that don't now exist. The United States cannot stand idly by as a generation of young people in the Middle East grows up to discover that there is no meaningful work for them, and that they have no way to provide for a family of their own. The problem will only get worse if we don't act now. As the rest of the world continues to liberalize its trade, the countries of the Middle East will only be left further behind. That is why we're today introducing the Middle East Trade and Engagement ACt of 2003. Under this Act, countries in the Middle East will be given preferential access to the U.S. market. This is not a one-way street. Countries must meet certain conditions. They must support our war on terrorism, and they must pursue economic reforms. Only then will they reap the benefits of this legislation. Our proposal can have an immediate impact. Opening our markets to the countries of the Middle East will encourage higher levels of trade and direct investment in those countries. And we know it can be a success because if has worked before in other regions. Our bill is modeled on successful programs that increased economic development in sub-Saharan Africa and the Andean countries. This legislation will do the same for the countries of the Middle East. Increased economic development in that region means jobs for the young and the unemployed, some of whom may otherwise be recruited by our enemies in the war on terrorism. By helping to strengthen these economies, we also increase the number of people who can afford to purchase American products and services. That means increased export opportunities for American businesses and more jobs for American farmers and workers. President Bush recently announced an initiative to create a free trade area for the United States and the countries of the Middle East by the year 2013. This is a good long-term goal. But the people in the Middle East need our help now. They need jobs now, not ten years from now. The Middle East Trade and Engagement Act would bring the benefits of trade to the people of the countries in the Middle East in a much shorter time. It would also help those countries make the economic reforms they'll need to make before a free trade area can become a realistic option. And just as trade in the time of the Silk Road allowed the exchange of ideas and culture as well as goods, increased trade now can strengthen ties between the United States and the countries in the Middle East. Now, in the Aftermath of the war in Iraq, the whole world's attention is focused on the Middle East. It is the ideal time for the United States to engage these countries in a comprehensive way and help bring them more fully into the global trading system. I hope that my colleagues will join Senator McCain and me in cosponsoring this important legislation, and I hope we will have a change to consider this in the Finance Committee this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Communities Act of 2003. I want to commend Senator Bingaman for introducing this bill today. He has been a strong advocate of Trade Adjustment Assistance and a strong voice for communities that need a helping hand facing the challenges of the global economy. Trade and trade-opening policies create benefits for our country. But that fact should not keep us from acknowledging that the benefits of trade are seldom evenly distributed. In fact, there can be losers from trade, even when the economy as a whole is better off. In 1962, President Kennedy said that ``those injured by . . . trade competition should not be required to bear the full brunt of the impact.'' ``There is an obligation,'' he said, for the Federal Government ``to render assistance to those who suffer as a result of national trade policy.'' That year, President Kennedy and a bipartisan majority of Congress created Trade Adjustment Assistance--a program designed to help those who are displaced by trade policy to retrain and get back on their feet. Last year, with help of another bipartisan majority of Congress, we passed the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002--a historic expansion of the TAA program. The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Communities Act continues to build on this important tradition by creating a new TAA program for communities. In a recent study, the General Accounting Office found that, even with TAA benefits available to displaced workers, the loss of a major employer can have ripple effects on the local economy. In addition to the direct job losses, local economies can experience reduced tax revenues, reduced sales by the closed plant's supplier firms and by local retailers, and rising social services costs. Until they can attract well-paying new jobs, these communities can face extended periods of economic distress. This is especially true in smaller and rural communities, such as we have in Montana. These communities may not have a lot of job opportunities for displaced workers, even with TAA retraining. Indeed, one of the main criticisms of the current TAS program has been that it does nothing to make sure there are jobs for workers at the end of the retraining process. There are a number of Federal programs out there that might offer some help. They are all over the map--in Commerce, Treasury, Labor, Agriculture, HUD and the SBA, just to name a few. But these communities have no way to start, no go-to person or resource to guide them through this maze of potential help. And the Federal Government doesn't make it any easier. There is very little coordination of response among the various agencies. Finally, even if communities can find these Federal resources, most existing programs are not tailored to the special needs of trade-impacted communities. This bill tries to make Federal economic assistance work better for trade-impacted distressed communities in a few simple ways. It creates a single office responsible for coordinating the Federal response. It creates a simple trigger process to identify potentially eligible communities and bring appropriate resources to their attention. It gives communities the technical assistance they need to develop a strategic plan--basically a roadmap for economic recovery. That helps ensure that Federal resources are being used in the most coordinated and cost-effective way possible. Finally, it makes sure that there are expertise and resources tailored to the special needs of trade-impacted communities. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bill. I hope we will be able to consider it in the Finance Committee this year.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, given that assurance, which I trust will occur, I do not object.

Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object, all this assumes, I take it from the majority leader, that we actually do get the conference report in time for the debate and then the vote.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Reorganization Act. The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms program assists hundreds of mostly small and medium-sized manufacturing and agricultural companies in Montana and nationwide when they face layoffs and lost sales due to import competition. Qualifying companies develop adjustment plans and receive technical assistance to become more competitive, so they can retain and expand employment. The program is very cost effective. It requires the firms being helped to match the Federal assistance with their own funds, and it pays the government back in Federal and State tax revenues when the firms succeed. Currently, TAA for Firms clients receive assistance preparing petitions and adjustment plans from twelve Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers, which are Commerce Department contractors. Program and policy decisions are made by a small Headquarters staff in Commerce's Economic Development Administration. This organizational structure is efficient and has served the program well for many years. For example, TAA for Firms is helping Montola Growers from Culbertson, Montana, to develop cosmetic applications for its rapeseed oil. The program is helping Pyramid Mountain Lumber of Seeley Lake, MT to upgrade its production process and train employees to use new process controls. And it is helping Porterbilt Company of Hamilton to expand its product line. Last year, in the Trade Act of 2002, a bipartisan majority of Congress voted to reauthorize this important program for seven years and to increase its authorized funding level. The program seemed headed toward some years of smooth sailing. But it turns out that is not the case. For reasons unrelated to TAA for Firms, EDA is about to move all its Headquarters program operations to its six regional offices, with a policy office in Washington. For TAA for Firms, that means clients will get the same local services from the TAACs, but decisions will be made in six regional offices and the national policy office--a net increase in layers of government. The likely result is more personnel needed to run the program, less centralized and consistent decision making, and less accountability--all without any likely improvement in customer service. The organizational structure of TAA for Firms is not broken and it doesn't need to be fixed. This bill preserves the existing efficient management structure of the TAA for Firms program. Instead of moving the program out of Commerce Headquarters entirely, it simply moves the program to a different part of the Commerce Department. That way it can continue to be centrally managed with a minimal staff. Under this bill, administration of TAA for Firms will move from the Economic Development Administration at the Department of Commerce to DOC's International Trade Administration. Relocating the program to ITA makes a lot more sense that dividing it up among seven different EDA offices, for several reasons. First, ITA has experience running this program, which was located there prior to 1990. Second, relocating TAA for Firms to ITA will result in fewer layers of government and more centralized and accountable program management. It also creates synergies by allowing better coordination of the TAA for Firms program with other trade and trade remedy programs administered by ITA. And it enhances the ability of the Finance Committee to carry out its oversight responsibilities for this program and for trade policy in general. I want to thank Senators Rockefeller, Bingaman, Dayton, and Murray who have joined me in co-sponsoring this bill. This is a simple matter of good, sensible government and I encourage more of my colleagues to lend it their support. I urge Chairman Grassley to take up this bill in the Finance Committee as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Communities Act of 2003. I want to commend Senator Bingaman for introducing this bill today. He has been a strong advocate of Trade Adjustment Assistance and a strong voice for communities that need a helping hand facing the challenges of the global economy. Trade and trade-opening policies create benefits for our country. But that fact should not keep us from acknowledging that the benefits of trade are seldom evenly distributed. In fact, there can be losers from trade, even when the economy as a whole is better off. In 1962, President Kennedy said that ``those injured by . . . trade competition should not be required to bear the full brunt of the impact.'' ``There is an obligation,'' he said, for the Federal Government ``to render assistance to those who suffer as a result of national trade policy.'' That year, President Kennedy and a bipartisan majority of Congress created Trade Adjustment Assistance--a program designed to help those who are displaced by trade policy to retrain and get back on their feet. Last year, with help of another bipartisan majority of Congress, we passed the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002--a historic expansion of the TAA program. The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Communities Act continues to build on this important tradition by creating a new TAA program for communities. In a recent study, the General Accounting Office found that, even with TAA benefits available to displaced workers, the loss of a major employer can have ripple effects on the local economy. In addition to the direct job losses, local economies can experience reduced tax revenues, reduced sales by the closed plant's supplier firms and by local retailers, and rising social services costs. Until they can attract well-paying new jobs, these communities can face extended periods of economic distress. This is especially true in smaller and rural communities, such as we have in Montana. These communities may not have a lot of job opportunities for displaced workers, even with TAA retraining. Indeed, one of the main criticisms of the current TAS program has been that it does nothing to make sure there are jobs for workers at the end of the retraining process. There are a number of Federal programs out there that might offer some help. They are all over the map--in Commerce, Treasury, Labor, Agriculture, HUD and the SBA, just to name a few. But these communities have no way to start, no go-to person or resource to guide them through this maze of potential help. And the Federal Government doesn't make it any easier. There is very little coordination of response among the various agencies. Finally, even if communities can find these Federal resources, most existing programs are not tailored to the special needs of trade-impacted communities. This bill tries to make Federal economic assistance work better for trade-impacted distressed communities in a few simple ways. It creates a single office responsible for coordinating the Federal response. It creates a simple trigger process to identify potentially eligible communities and bring appropriate resources to their attention. It gives communities the technical assistance they need to develop a strategic plan--basically a roadmap for economic recovery. That helps ensure that Federal resources are being used in the most coordinated and cost-effective way possible. Finally, it makes sure that there are expertise and resources tailored to the special needs of trade-impacted communities. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bill. I hope we will be able to consider it in the Finance Committee this year.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, sometime in the near future--near is in the eyes of the beholder--we are going to vote on the conference report to the tax cut bill. When that does come up before the Senate, I will oppose the bill and recommend the conference report not be adopted. The conference report, which will be before us soon, is, first, not fiscally responsible. It is not fair to working Americans, and is not likely to succeed in rebuilding the American economy. First, fiscal responsibility: Two years ago when we considered the 2001 tax cut, the Congressional Budget Office projected trillions of dollars of surpluses well into the future. In fact, $5.6 trillion was projected as budget surpluses over the next 10 years. Today, that same neutral, independent body, the Congressional Budget Office, projects deficits well into the future, and the rough estimate is about $2 trillion of deficits, a swing of close to $7 trillion to $8 trillion over just 2 years. The fiscal environment has dramatically changed since 2002. If that is the case, I believe our tax policies should also change. Whereas in 2001 it made sense to cut taxes, today we should look much more carefully at any potential tax cut. The fiscal environment has changed very much today compared to where it was in 2001. Consequently, we should be carefully examining our tax policies and asking whether our tax policies should change accordingly. The Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, kept his word and forced the conferees to keep the conference report, at least on its face, within the $350 billion Senate agreement. Unfortunately, this tax cut bill busts through that $350 billion ceiling through a series of gimmicks that hide the true cost of the bill, and in this time of increasing deficits, I believe we must live within our limits, and this conference report fails to do so. Instead, it uses phase-ins and sunsets to shoehorn large tax cuts into a small budget window. Republicans have designed a tax cut that is one big yo-yo. Now you see it, now you don't. Here again, on again, off again. It is one big yo-yo which I will explain in a few minutes. The child credit, for example, has increased for the years 2003 and 2004, and then guess what. It is taken away. That is one yo-yo. Part of the marriage penalty is eliminated for the years 2003 and 2004. Guess what again. The penalty comes back again after 2004. The 10-percent bracket is expanded for 2003 and 2004. Then it reverts back. Even the dividend tax cut disappears after 2008. Individual taxpayers and corporate taxpayers, I believe, want certainty. They want some predictability. They want to be able to plan for their families, and companies want to plan for the future. Individuals want to know whether they can plan for vacations, education, and companies want to know whether to invest or not invest. We certainly do not give them that certainty and predictability in this bill. As for planning, this bill tells American taxpayers, for example, to get married in the year 2003 or 2004, have a child in 2003 or 2004, and then get divorced in 2005. This bill is simply full of way too many gimmicks. Last year, Members of Congress and the President expressed their outrage at the accounting gimmicks and manipulations of income and expenses by Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia. In fact, legislation was enacted last year to put the brakes on the use of accounting gimmicks by corporate America. If these accounting gimmicks and financial statement manipulations are so intolerable in corporate America, then why are they not intolerable for the U.S. Congress? Why should Congress be allowed to deceive the American public? What is really going on here? What is really going on is that the majority intends to extend these tax cuts beyond the budget window. That is what is really going on here. That is the accounting gimmick. That is what is hidden. But if we extend the tax cuts, they will only add to the long-term budget problem. That is, if they are extended as intended by the majority party, they will add to the fiscal nightmares just as we face budget strains brought on by the baby boom generation. Congress should come clean with what is really going on, what it is really up to. Second, this conference report is not fair to working Americans. The benefits of this bill are skewed heavily to the elite in this country. It mistakenly directs less of its resources to working American families--much less. In this sluggish economy, that is also not good economic policy. Working American families are more likely to spend tax cuts quickly; that is, tax cuts directed at working American families will more likely help rebuild the American economy, but that is not what this bill does. Take, for example, the tax cuts for dividends. This tax cut alone is heavily weighted to the elite. Three out of four American taxpayers have no dividend income, and half of those who do have dividend income have less than $500 in dividend income. That is about one out of eight at $500 or less in dividend income. So the overwhelming majority of Americans will get little or no benefit from this provision. But look how much this single provision will benefit the elite who do profit from it. A taxpayer who had a million dollars in dividend income will get a tax break of $236,000. In contrast, $118 or less in tax cuts for the seven-eighths of taxpayers who receive $500 or less in dividend income and $236,000 for the dividend millionaire. That is simply not fair. Let's look at priorities. The dividends provision is the single largest provision in the bill. That means the bill imposes a penalty on wage earners by definition. Under the bill, the maximum tax on investment income, that is, dividends and capital gains, is 15 percent. The tax on the wages, however, continues to be heavy. A single fireman earning $35,000 per year pays 40 percent of his marginal income in Federal taxes, 15 percent in payroll taxes, plus 25 percent in income taxes. In contrast, a retired investment banker living off the dividends on a $1 million portfolio of stocks pays only 15 percent of his marginal income in Federal taxes. Again, this is not fair. Whatever happened to the argument that we need to eliminate the double taxation of dividends? I thought that is what this bill was supposed to be primarily about. This conference report does not do that. It does not eliminate the double taxation of dividends. Rather, in many cases it would eliminate not only the double taxation of dividends, but it eliminates even the one- time taxation of dividends income. That means zero taxation on dividends. In many cases, as a consequence of the way this conference report is written, there will be no taxation on many dividends offered by corporations. The corporation will not pay the tax, and the shareholder will not pay the tax. So this bill lowers the tax for dividends. It lowers the tax for capital gains. The bill says it is a priority of the majority party and the President, apparently, to ensure that the only people who need to pay full freight are those hard-working Americans who earn their income in wages. The American way is to work hard, to earn income, to do well. There is much more opportunity and mobility in America than any other country, by far. Foreigners who come to America to live and start a business are astounded at the opportunity and mobility in this country compared to the country from which they came. I do not criticize--in fact, I applaud--anybody who works hard and can earn an income and do well in America. At least they have a much better chance in this country compared with any other country. So I am not being critical of those who make a lot of money. That is great. I wish all Americans could make a lot of money. In fact, that is my underlying goal, certainly in my home State of Montana, to do what we can to get more people to earn more money and get higher paying jobs so more Americans are able to make ends meet. In this bill, all of America is not being treated alike. We are not being treated together as Americans. This bill is tilted very heavily toward the elite, the extremely wealthy. They are the ones who get the big tax breaks, whereas the average American does not. That is not fair. The benefits of this bill should be evenly distributed among all Americans. That is not what has happened in this bill. I am not being critical of tax breaks for the wealthy. They should get tax breaks, but I am saying as Americans we should pass legislation that treats Americans equally. That is not what is happening in this bill. Basically, this bill is not fair. It is not good tax policy, and it does nothing to encourage the work ethic that built this Nation. I might ask now, how did the conference committee pay for this nontaxation of dividends? The conference committee turned to the Americans today who otherwise would receive the relief under the marriage penalty to, in effect, pay for these tax-free dividends. To say it differently, the marriage penalty tax cuts were scaled back to pay for the dividend proposal in this bill; that is, couples are going to be penalized under this bill to pay for the huge breaks in dividend income for the elite of this country. What about the marriage penalty for lower income families? No, this conference report does not find the resources to speed up the elimination of the marriage penalty for recipients of the earned-income tax credit, but it does find the money for the dividend tax break. Once again, that is not good tax policy. It is not fair. It does illustrate priorities but I think the wrong priorities for our country. So this bill increases the budget deficit and lays the bill at the door of our children and grandchildren. I think those of us who seek public office have a moral responsibility to represent people in our home States. That moral responsibility is to do our best to leave this country in as good a shape or better shape than we found it. We have that responsibility because we are not going to be here forever. We are going to have children and grandchildren and they will have children and grandchildren. We would like the United States of America to continually be strong and be the country that most people in the world look up to. That is our responsibility because we are not going to be here forever. This bill does not fulfill that moral responsibility. It leaves a huge additional burden on our children and grandchildren. That is another reason to not pass this bill. By the time the baby boomers start to retire, when there will be huge budget pressures to help reform Medicare, to make sure that our senior citizens have the health care benefits they need and, in addition, Social Security, make sure that our senior citizens have the retirement benefits, at least the basic minimum benefits, a safety net, we should not pass this bill because this bill, in effect, makes that problem much more difficult. It adds a huge burden that Members of Congress are going to have to face when those years come up in about 5, 10, or 15 years from now. This bill increases the budget deficit and lays the bill at the door of our children and grandchildren. It inappropriately targets its tax breaks at the elite instead of those more likely to spend it. This bill is simply not structured to be effective in rebuilding the American economy. I believe it would be irresponsible to enact this legislation, especially at this time. I might add, there is an interesting article--in fact, it is a bit of an alarming article--in the Financial Times printed on Wednesday, just yesterday. On the front page of the Financial Times, they reported their interview of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Mr. Greenspan aised concerns about the impact of further tax cuts and spending increases. According to the Times, Mr. Greenspan: [E]xpressed dismay at what he characterized as a breakdown in budget discipline in Washington. He reminded lawmakers that the U.S. Government was facing a ``significant'' budget problem as the baby-boom population ages and draws on more healthcare and retirement benefits. Mr. Greenspan added that he would: [L]ike to see that addressed more seriously than it is. In his words: The silence is deafening. I will not be part of that silence. I strongly urge Members of this body to do what is right, to consider what they are doing today. In return for a short-term gain, they will be creating a long-term, much greater problem if they vote for this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against the conference report. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. We do have a list. We have 14--12 on our side at least.

Mr. BAUCUS. The answer to the question is, we have not agreed to a list. Technically people are still able to add.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I think sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. We have been on this bill for 2 full days. I have amendments which I would like to offer. I am willing to forego those amendments. As the Senator from Nevada said, there are about 14 amendments left. That means in 5 more hours we will be here on this bill, before we get to the global HIV/AIDS bill. I urge Senators on both sides of the aisle--and I guess I particularly appeal to Senators on my side of the aisle--that there are a couple here that probably could and should be voted on but some of them probably not. There will be another day. There will be another tax bill. There will be other opportunities for us to offer amendments. I think, frankly, after a couple, three or four or five more amendments, it is about time to wrap up this bill. We know what the conclusion is going to be on all the amendments. As the Senator has said, some of the subjects have already been addressed. Some have not, but some of the subjects already have been addressed. I have been working with the chairman of the committee throughout this bill to try to work out a good process. My judgment is that we should whittle down the list.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it now be in order to go to the amendment offered by the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we now go to the amendment by the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest that the Senate now vote by voice on this amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest that the Chair put the question a second time.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment sunsets offsets not in this decade but in the next decade. Many of the provisions in this bill should be permanent; that is, corporate inversion legislation, shelters, provisions that should change the law. That is good public policy. Not all of the provisions in this bill are offsets just to make the budget numbers work. Rather, they are provisions which make good public policy and should continue. Also, it violates the Byrd rule because it raises an extraneous matter in a reconciliation bill. I make a point of order that the amendment violates section 313 of the Budget Act.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 577