Max Baucus

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

Mr. BAUCUS. I support estate tax repeal. But I am forced to vote against Senator Kyl's amendment for permanent repeal because of two concerns. First, I am concerned about mounting deficits, and second, I believe that this amendment would result in payment reductions to rural providers under Medicare. The budget resolution we are debating today includes tax cuts that total $1.3 trillion. The budget also proposes that $725 billion of these tax cuts be enacted immediately, under the reconciliation process. Two years ago, we passed a $1.3 trillion tax cut. I supported that tax cut. But those were different times. We had a surplus. We did not foresee the significant decline in revenues. Or the deficits that followed. This is not the time to reduce revenues by $725 billion. It would hurt our budget and our economy. In order to prevent the passage of tax cuts that would drive up the deficit and hurt our economy, I believe that we must reduce the size of this tax cut. While Senator Kyl has stated that he intends to pay for his amendment, I am concerned that his offset would have a negative impact on rural providers in Montana. The cost of his amendment is estimated to be $46 billion. And when asked how he proposed to offset this cost, he stated that it should come from a general fund for Finance Committee action. According to the Senate Budget Committee, this amendment would result in a negative allocation to the Finance Committee in 2009 through 2013. More specifically, the committee's allocation for these years would be negative $22 billion. That's minus $22 billion. Quite a deficit to overcome, and those savings would be difficult to find. Those of us who were here when the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 passed recognize full well that these savings would come from Medicare. An estimated 90 percent of the savings passed by the Finance Committee in the 1997 law came from the Medicare Program, through reductions in payments to providers. I would hesitate to cut the program a year before the baby boom generation starts to retire to finance a tax cut that we pass in 2003. Providers are currently facing severe reductions in Medicaid payments. They are coping with an uninsured rate that continues to climb, which means that they must shoulder an increasing burden of uncompensated care. These problems may worsen by the time these cuts take effect. They may also improve. But we cannot know for sure. And looking at the current state of our health care system, I am simply not prepared to take the chance that providers can sustain these cuts. Mr. President, let me reiterate that I support estate tax repeal, and I will continue to support thoughtful and responsible changes to tax policy. But I cannot support this amendment at this time.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mark Kirbabas, Tyler Garrett, and Shawn White of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the consideration of H.R. 1307.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

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

Mr. BAUCUS. I share the sentiments of Chairman Grassley. I would support tax treatment for our Guardsmen and Reservists like that proposed by Senators Landrieu, DeWine, and Allen. S. 351 is not the appropriate venue, but the reconciliation package should achieve the goals of S. 442. The junior Senator from Louisiana is correct that the $350 billion tax package should contain both tax cuts to promote growth and benefit the quality of life for the men and women in the United States Armed Forces.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield whatever time the Senator from Arkansas desires.

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, earlier I paid tribute to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. There is a provision in the legislation we are considering which was very near and dear to the heart of Senator Moynihan, and that is the expatriation provision contained in this bill. It was actually developed by Senator Moynihan and Senator Roth several years ago. That is the genesis of this provision. As we know, there are many men and women overseas fighting for our country. For example, there are currently about 300,000 in Iraq. At the same time, there are individuals who attempt to escape their patriotic duty. While we have 300,000 men and women over in Iraq, other individuals are attempting to escape their patriotic duty. They relinquish their U.S. citizenship. Why? One basic reason: In order to avoid supporting the United States through taxes. Between 1991 and 2002, approximately 6,500 U.S. citizens have expatriated; that is, they gave up their U.S. citizenship. In 1966, as part of the Foreign Investors Tax Act, Congress created an alternative tax regime for U.S. citizens who expatriated in order to avoid paying taxes. The alternative tax regime taxes a former citizen on U.S. property for 10 years after expatriation. These tax rules were strengthened in 1996 following press reports and congressional hearings indicating that very wealthy individuals expatriated while maintaining significant contacts with the United States. Unfortunately, these changes to the law have not deterred citizens from expatriating to avoid paying U.S. taxes. The changes simply never worked as Congress intended. This year, the Joint Committee on Taxation published a study on individual expatriation. According to the Joint Committee, there is virtually no enforcement of the special tax and immigration rules applicable to tax-motivated citizenship relinquishment and residency termination. The Joint Committee also said that present law has been highly ineffective. Present law continues to provide tax incentives for individuals to expatriate. It also is difficult to collect U.S. taxes on former citizens who are no longer physically present in the United States. Additionally, a study conducted by the General Accounting Office concluded that the IRS did not have a systematic compliance effort. That means that we are not even enforcing the alternative tax regime that is on the books. That means a former citizen could avoid the alternative tax regime by holding foreign assets--which are not taxed. Or by waiting until the 10-year period expires before disposing of U.S. property. The Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act includes a new system to address tax-motivated expatriation. Under this legislation, any U.S. citizen or long-term resident who relinquishes their U.S. citizenship or residency will be subject to an exit tax on the gains attributable to property owned during their U.S. citizenship. Under this proposal, if the gain exceeds $600,000, then a former citizen will be taxed on the net unrealized gain on property--as if it were sold at fair market value 1 day prior to expatriation. The Treasury Department believes that this new system will greatly improve the administrability of the tax on expatriates. The new system imposes the tax at the time the individual leaves the U.S. jurisdiction. Additionally, by including foreign assets within the regime, this eliminates a significant incentive for tax-motivated expatriation. This expatriation provision will raise $700 million. The military bill uses that $700 million to provide tax benefits to military personnel. In contrast, the House version of the military bill is simply a modification of the current alternative tax regime. It raises $328 million. The House version will not go far enough. It simply adds more provisions for the IRS to enforce. This strikes me as odd considering none of the current provisions is being enforced. Sometimes the laws just do not work the way Congress intended. So, we must change the laws to ensure they are effective and administered as Congress intended. The current system to tax expatriates does not work. We have had nearly 40 years to make the system work. We should not wait any longer to collect taxes on those who do not value the freedoms our nation provides. The new proposal does not seek to tax expatriates on income earned after expatriation. It just says they have to pay tax on the income earned while they were a U.S. citizen. While our military protected them. I thank former Senator Bill Roth and the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who developed this proposal several years ago. And I thank Senator Harkin and others who have continued to work on this in the 107th Congress and this year. Amendment No. 433 (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute) On behalf of Senator Grassley and myself, I call up amendment numbered 433.

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2003. On February 5, 2003, the Finance Committee favorably reported the bill by unanimous voice vote. As the conflict in Iraq continues, our thoughts are with the men and women who are leading America's response and serving our country. Whether it be the Marines deployed in Iraq, the National Guard supporting our troops, or the Foreign Service Officers serving in dangerous diplomatic posts. I think in particular of the many men and women in Montana. These men and women have been called to service to defend our Nation. In fact, on September 11 of 2002, the members of the 120th Fighter Wing of the Montana Air National Guard were called on to secure the skies of the no-fly zone over Iraq. For these dedicated public servants, we are considering the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act. This bill will not only correct inequities in the current Tax Code that our military men and women are subject to but it will also provide incentives for our dedicated forces to continue their service to America. These are the men and women who put their lives on the line for our freedom on a daily basis. We need to ensure that the tax laws we pass do not negatively impact them. It is with these principles in mind that I have moved forward with the introduction of this military tax package and that the Finance Committee favorably reported the bill. I would now like to describe the provisions included in this critical piece of legislation: Why is the death gratuity payments provision so important? Under current law, death gratuity benefits are excludable from income only to the extent that they were as of September 9, 1986. In 1986, the death gratuity benefit was $3,000. In 1991, the benefit was increased to $6,000 but the Tax Code was never adjusted to exclude the additional $3,000 from income. Because of this oversight, the U.S. government has been taxing families for the death of a family member who died in combat. Just 2 weeks ago, one of our soldiers from Montana, PFC Stryder Stoutenburg, was killed during a Blackhawk helicopter crash. A native of Missoula, Private First Class Stoutenburg was only 18. His mother will receive the death benefit payment, but will be taxed on half of it. She has already lost so much. It is unfair to also take away part of the small compensation she is receiving. In 1997, Congress passed legislation revising the taxation of capital gains on the sale of a person's principal residence. The new law provides that up to $250,000 or $500,000 for a married couple is excluded on the sale of a principal residence if the individual has lived in the house for at least two of the previous five years. However, when enacted, Congress failed to provide a special rule for military and foreign service personnel who are required to move either within the U.S. or abroad. Our proposal would permit service personnel and members of the foreign service to suspend the 5-year period while away on assignment. That means that those years would not count toward either the two years or the five year periods. Senators McCain, Graham, and Lincoln proposed a bill in the last session to correct this. The Department of Defense provides payments to members of the Armed Services to offset diminution in housing values due to military base realignment or closure. For example, if a house near a base was worth $140,000 prior to the base closure and $100,000 after the base closure, DoD may provide the owner with a payment to offset some, but not all, of the $40,000 diminution in value. Under current law, those amounts are taxable as compensation. We should ensure that those men and women losing value in their homes due to a federal government decision are not adversely affected financially. The proposal would provide that payments for lost value are not includible into income. Under current law, military personnel in a combat zone are afforded an extended period for filing tax returns. However, this does not apply to contingency operations. This proposal would extend the same benefits to military personnel assigned to contingency operations. It cannot be easy trying to figure out our complicated tax system while you are overseas and protecting our nation's freedom. Those men and women who are sent to uphold democracy and freedom in other countries are confronted with the same filing complications as combat zone personnel. Contingency operations are just as demanding as combat zone deployment, although not always in the same manner. For example, in our current war on terrorism, this proposal would help members of our Special Forces in the Philippines supporting Operation Enduring Freedom who are just as focused on accomplishing their critical mission as our troops in the Iraqi combat zone. Some reservists who travel one weekend per month and two weeks in the summer for reserve duty incur significant travel and lodging expenses. For the most part, these expenses are not reimbursed. Under current law, these are deductible as itemized deductions but must exceed 2 percent of adjusted gross income. For lower income reservists, this deduction does not provide a benefit, because they do not itemize. For higher income reservists, the 2 percent floor limits the amount of the benefit of the deductions. In my home state of Montana, we have approximately 3,500 reservists, 800 of whom travel each month across the state for their training. These 800 reservists pay travel and lodging expenses out of their own pocket. Montana ranks 48th in the nation for per capita personal income. So, that $200 expense for reserve duty every month means a lot to the Montana reservist. Yet, they continue selflessly to provide their services to our country at their own expense. For those reservists who travel out of state for their training, this expense is even higher. This proposal would provide an above the line deduction for overnight travel costs and would be available for all reservists and members of the National Guard. Currently, qualified veterans' organizations under section 501(c)(19) of the tax code are tax-exempt. In addition contributions to the organization are tax-deductible. In order to qualify under 501(c)(19), the organization must meet several tests, including 75 percent of the members must be current or former military, and substantially all of the other members must be either spouses, widows, or widowers of current or former military. The proposal would permit lineal descendants and ancestors to qualify for the ``substantially all'' test. It is important that our veterans' organizations continue the good work that they do. But, as the organizations age, they are in danger of losing their tax-exempt status. This bill helps ensure the vitality of these organizations. I want to ensure that parents in the military can continue their dedicated service once they enter parenthood, with the knowledge that their children are being well taken care of. The military provides extensive childcare benefits to its employees. Employees at DoD-owned facilities provide childcare services while other areas with non-DoD owned facilities contract out their childcare. When Congress passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986, we included a provision stating that qualified military benefits are excluded from income. It is not absolutely clear whether childcare provisions are covered under this provision. The proposal would clarify that any childcare benefit provided to military personnel would be excludible from income. This bill permits penalty-free withdrawals from Coverdell education savings accounts and qualified tuition programs made on account of the attendance of the account holder or beneficiary at any of the service academies. The amount of the funds that can be withdrawn penalty-free is limited to the costs of advanced education in that calendar year. Under current law there is no procedure for the IRS to suspend the tax-exempt status of an organization. This proposal would suspend the tax-exempt status of an organization for any period during which the organization is designated or identified by Executive Order as a terrorist organization. Current law provides for income tax, estate tax and death benefit relief to soldiers who are killed in a combat zone, victims of the September 11th attacks, the Oklahoma City bombing victims, and the victims of the anthrax attacks. The crew of the Space Shuttle Columbia was heroic in every sense of the word. We have a duty to those who lost their lives for the advancement of science and increasing our knowledge of the world we live in. This legislation makes all of the above benefits available to the families of the Columbia crew. In addition, this bill includes three revenue offsets. First, we improve the collection of unpaid taxes from people who have renounced their American citizenship in order to avoid U.S. taxes. Second, we extend certain IRS user fees. Third, we restore the ability of the IRS to permit partial-pay installment agreements with taxpayers. The Military bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee fixes some of the inequities in our tax code and, more importantly, acknowledges the men and women who are making sacrifices and risking their lives to defend us all. I thank all of the Members who have contributed to the development of the bill: Senators Levin and Warner of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Landrieu for the childcare provision, Senator Johnson for the contingency operation provision, Senator DeWine for the above-the-line deduction, and Senator Harkin for the Veterans and Expatriation provisions. I especially thank the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, who has once again been a partner in the development of important bipartisan tax legislation. Mr. President, it is important that we continue to show members of the armed forces our support and solidarity during this time of conflict. The War on Terrorism and the conflict with Iraq have brought to light the essential role the armed services play in upholding freedom throughout the world. I hope to see this military tax equity bill passed by the Senate today, and signed into law by the President swiftly. 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. President, we are now awaiting the arrival of the chairman of the committee. Pending his arrival, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Arkansas be allowed to speak for as long as she would like. She is making a good statement, and there is no other Member on the floor. I make that request.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in paying tribute to Senator Moynihan. He was one of the most special, most erudite, forward-thinking persons I have had the privilege to meet. He was an amazing man. Senator Moynihan died yesterday at the age of 76. With a little bit of history--and then I will give a few personal anecdotes--he was elected to the Senate in 1976. I was elected in 1978, 2 years later. I had the privilege and honor to join both the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Finance Committee at the same time as Senator Moynihan. Senator Moynihan served as both chairman and ranking member of both committees. I had huge shoes to fill, as I immediately followed him as chairman and ranking member of each committee. I sat next to him many days and many hours. He was a wonderful man. We all know about Senator Moynihan's great contributions in such important areas as foreign policy, trade policy, welfare, transportation, and environmental policy. They are enormous. On the foreign side, Senator Moynihan was a visionary. In 1979, while the CIA and others were talking about how strong the Soviet Union was, Senator Moynihan predicted its downfall. I heard him say that many times. With keen understanding of history and the laws of economics, Senator Moynihan understood the inherent weakness of the Soviet structure. Senator Moynihan's foreign policy experience led him to his groundbreaking work on Government secrecy, advocating greater openness as a core strength for any democracy. On trade policy, Senator Moynihan had a vast depth of experience from being a trade negotiator to being a legislator. As a legislator, he was quick to educate his colleagues on the importance of pursuing a strong, bipartisan, open trade policy. With an unfailing independent voice, he was a firm believer in the principle that partisanship should not extend beyond our borders. On welfare policy, Senator Moynihan was the center of debate for more than three decades. From his groundbreaking report on family policy for President Johnson, to his work for President Nixon on his welfare proposal, to his own Family Support Act of 1988, the first welfare reform legislation passed in decades, to his passionate dissent to the 1996 welfare legislation, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan never forgot what it was like to grow up in a poor family. For him it was clearly always about helping the children. On transportation policy, Senator Moynihan was the author of the groundbreaking highway bill known as ISTEA. That legislation led to the dramatic improvement in transportation policy by focusing on surface transportation more broadly. On environmental policy, Senator Moynihan was one of the first to stress that good environmental policy should be based on sound science. I heard that many times--sound science. He was right. He absolutely insisted that we obtain a careful understanding of the scientific problems and understanding of them on a scientific basis before we proceeded with environmental policy. But his incredible contributions to our Nation did not stop there. One of his most enduring, but least known, contributions was his contribution to public architecture, particularly on the Environment and Public Works Committee. Thomas Jefferson said: Design activity and political thought are indivisible. In keeping with this, Senator Moynihan sought to improve our public places so they could reflect and uplift our civic culture. He himself said it well in 1961. We all know he held many important positions in Government, but it is not known so well that early in his career, in 1961, he was the staff director of something called the Ad Hoc Committee on Federal Office Space. That is right, in addition to all of his books, he once wrote a document called ``The Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture.'' He wrote it in 1961, and it remains in effect today. It is one page long. It says that public buildings should not only be efficient and economical, but also should ``provide visual testimony to the dignity, enterprise, vigor, and stability of the American Government.'' For many years, Pat Moynihan worked with energy and vision to put the goals expressed in the guidelines into practice. As an assistant to President Kennedy, he was one of the driving forces behind the effort to renovate Pennsylvania Avenue and finally achieve Pierre L'Enfant's vision. He followed through. There is the Navy memorial, Pershing Park, the Ronald Reagan Building, and Ariel Rios, and there are other projects. Along with Senator John Chafee, he had the vision to restore Union Station--now a magnificent building--and then to complement it with the beautiful Thurgood Marshall Judiciary Building not far away. It is a remarkable legacy leaving a lasting mark on our public places that brings us together as American citizens. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that Daniel Patrick Moynihan has had a greater positive impact on American public architecture than any statesman since Thomas Jefferson. In St. Paul's Cathedral in London, there is a description memorializing the architect of that cathedral, Sir Christopher Wren, and it reads: If you would see his memorial, look about you. If years from now you stand outside the Capitol and look west down Pennsylvania Avenue, north at Union Station, and the Marshall Building, you can say the same about Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan; that is, if you would see his memorial, look about you. A few years ago when we were naming the Foley Square Courthouse in his honor, I used the same quote. I must confess, I was very pleased to have found this quote in English history and hoped to impress my very learned colleague. However, as is often the case, I fell a little short. No one, it turns out, can match his learning. After my remarks, Senator Moynihan gave me a big hug. He was so happy. But he also corrected me quietly and politely. I had, he said, given the correct translation. I had said it was in Italian. He said: Max, I think it's in Latin. Sure enough, it is in Latin. In his honor, I stand corrected. The inscription memorializing the architect of St. Paul's Cathedral, Sir Christopher Wren, reads: Si monumentum requiris, circumspice; Latin for: If you want to see the memorial, look about you. As we consider ways of memorializing Senator Moynihan, I have a suggestion. He loved Pennsylvania Avenue. He inspired its renovation. He helped design it. He helped build it. He lived there when he retired. It is his home. Therefore, I suggest that at an appropriate point on the avenue, we add his inscription: Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Si monumentum requiris, circumspice. I might also add, Senator Moynihan gave the commencement address this last June at Harvard University. I have read it. I was very impressed with it. I said to him: Patrick, that was a great speech. Do you mind if I put that in the Congressional Record? He said: I would love it. About 2 months later, I received a letter from Senator Moynihan, and it said: Dear Max, you once offered, perhaps irrationally, to include my commencement address in the Record. Mr. President, I think it is appropriate that Senator Lautenberg asked that Senator Moynihan's speech be printed in the Record. It is the commencement address he gave last June 6 at Harvard University. I commend it to my colleagues. Senator Moynihan's speech includes many wise words about the future of our country, about terrorism, how to handle the world, which leads me to another memory of him. It was at the end of a session, and we were about to go on a 2-week recess. Senator Moynihan's chair is behind me at the end of the aisle by the door. I said: Patrick, what are you going to do this recess? He said: I am going to give the Oxford lecture. I said: What is that? He explained it. He said: I am going to give the Oxford lecture. I am going over to England. What are you going to talk about? What are you going to say? I am going to talk about the rise of ethnicity. What do you mean? At the end of the cold war, he talked about the urdu, an Israeli sect, which was very strong, which epitomizes the rise of ethnicity in the world at the conclusion of the cold war. It is so true, if one stops and thinks about it. The world order has collapsed, and we are now almost in a free-for-all when different ethnicities, different countries, different people are pursuing their own dreams, and it is very difficult to find some managed order in this chaotic world today. That was Senator Moynihan: The rise of ethnicity. It is very true. Another time, I had a wonderful encounter with him, a wonderful exchange. People often ask us: What is going to happen, Senator? Who is going to win this election? What is going to happen? I always answered: Well, as Prime Minister Disraeli would always say, in politics a week is a long time. That was before television. That was before radio. Today, it is even a shorter period of time to try to predict what is going to happen in political matters. Sometimes it is just a minute. I was standing in the well of the Senate and somebody asked me: What is going to happen? And I said: Well, Disraeli said, in politics a week is a long time. Senator Moynihan happened to overhear me, and very graciously and politely he walked up to me when the other Senators had left. He kind of leaned over to me and he said: Max, now I think that was Baldwin. I looked it up. Sure enough, it was Lord Baldwin--it was not Disraeli--who said, in politics a week is a long time. He was an absolutely amazing man, the Senator's Senator, a professor. I have never known a Senator so gifted as Senator Moynihan. We are all going to certainly mourn his passing, but even more important than that, we are going to have very fond memories of him and I think be guided and inspired by him in so many different ways. We are very thankful he chose to serve our country as his calling. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it has been said that, ``Good health and good sense are two of life's greatest blessings.'' Senators Hatch, Rockefeller, Jeffords and I hope to further the cause of good health and good sense today, through introduction of the Health Care Safety Net Oversight Act of 2003. Currently no entity oversees America's health care safety net. This means that safety net providers--including public and teaching hospitals, emergency departments, community health centers and rural health clinics--are laboring on their own. They are like master musicians performing without a conductor. Each is trying their hardest and performing their part--but no one is coordinating their efforts. This Act changes that, by creating the Safety Net Organizations and Patient Advisory Commission--SNOPAC--an independent and nonpartisan commission to monitor the health care safety net. Safety net providers are often the last resort for patients unable to afford the health care they need. For example, in my State of Montana, we have eight community health centers, serving about 44,000 Montanans per year. Without these health centers, many of these uninsured and underinsured Montanans would have no place to turn. According to a recent report, nearly 75 million Americans lacked health insurance at some time in the past two years--amounting to almost one-third of all Americans younger than 65. Of these 74.7 million individuals, about 30 percent had no coverage at some time in 2001 and 2002 while 65 percent had no coverage for at least six months. And who are these people? In Montana, about 80 percent of uninsured individuals are in working families. And self-employed workers-- including owners of small businesses--and their dependents account for about one-fifth of the uninsured in our State. Montana has one of the lowest rates of employer-sponsored insurance in the Nation, with about 46 percent of Montanans receiving health insurance through their employers. So what do we do about this problem? How do we ensure that all Americans, irrespective of color, creed, gender, or geography, have access to qualify health care? About 10 years ago Congress and the Administration worked on the problem of the uninsured. A tremendous amount of time and effort went into the Health Security Act, on both sides of the issue. As we know, passage of that bill failed. Since then, Congress has taken a more incremental approach to the uninsured. Congress passed legislation in 1996 to ensure portability of health insurance. A year later, the CHIP program was signed into law, bipartisan legislation to cover children of working families. And last year, we worked together to provide health coverage for workers who lost their jobs because of increased international trade. While these incremental steps have helped, we need to do more. Last year I introduced bipartisan legislation to provide employers with tax credits so they can offer their employees health insurance. And I am hopeful that the Baucus-Smith, OR bill can be enacted into law. But the fact remains, for most uninsured and underinsured Americans, the safety net is still the only place to turn. Yet, the safety net has been seriously damaged in recent years. According to report a few years ago by the Institute of Medicine, the health care safety net is ``intact but endangered.'' And according to a report I requested of the General Accounting Office, issued today, emergency departments across the nation are facing severe overcrowding problems, forced to send patients to other hospitals. The GAO found that about two-thirds of hospitals reported asking ambulances to be diverted to other hospitals at some point in fiscal year 2001. And about 10 percent of hospitals reported being on diversion status for more than 20 percent of the year. September 11 taught us that we need to be ready. Our emergency response systems must be prepared to manage an unexpected terrorist attack. But based on the GAO's findings, it seems that we are far from prepared. If emergency departments cannot care for all the patients they are sent under current conditions, how can we expect them to manage a terrorist attack of potentially catastrophic proportions? We need an entity responsible for recommending changes to our safety net, including our emergency departments. And though SNOPAC will not solve the problems of America's uninsured, it will work to ensure that safety net is not further frayed. An independent, non-partisan commission, modeled on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), SNOPAC will include professionals from across the policy and practical spectrum of health care. And like MedPAC, SNOPAC will report to the relevant committees of Congress on the status of its mission: tracking the well-being of the health care safety net. SNOPAC is not a panacea. But it is a positive step toward a coordinated approach in caring for the uninsured. Absent large-scale improvements in the number of insured Americans, we should at least work to monitor and care for what we already have--an intact, but endangered, health care safety net. I urge all my colleagues to join me in this effort towards good health and good sense.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it has been said that, ``Good health and good sense are two of life's greatest blessings.'' Senators Hatch, Rockefeller, Jeffords and I hope to further the cause of good health and good sense today, through introduction of the Health Care Safety Net Oversight Act of 2003. Currently no entity oversees America's health care safety net. This means that safety net providers--including public and teaching hospitals, emergency departments, community health centers and rural health clinics--are laboring on their own. They are like master musicians performing without a conductor. Each is trying their hardest and performing their part--but no one is coordinating their efforts. This Act changes that, by creating the Safety Net Organizations and Patient Advisory Commission--SNOPAC--an independent and nonpartisan commission to monitor the health care safety net. Safety net providers are often the last resort for patients unable to afford the health care they need. For example, in my State of Montana, we have eight community health centers, serving about 44,000 Montanans per year. Without these health centers, many of these uninsured and underinsured Montanans would have no place to turn. According to a recent report, nearly 75 million Americans lacked health insurance at some time in the past two years--amounting to almost one-third of all Americans younger than 65. Of these 74.7 million individuals, about 30 percent had no coverage at some time in 2001 and 2002 while 65 percent had no coverage for at least six months. And who are these people? In Montana, about 80 percent of uninsured individuals are in working families. And self-employed workers-- including owners of small businesses--and their dependents account for about one-fifth of the uninsured in our State. Montana has one of the lowest rates of employer-sponsored insurance in the Nation, with about 46 percent of Montanans receiving health insurance through their employers. So what do we do about this problem? How do we ensure that all Americans, irrespective of color, creed, gender, or geography, have access to qualify health care? About 10 years ago Congress and the Administration worked on the problem of the uninsured. A tremendous amount of time and effort went into the Health Security Act, on both sides of the issue. As we know, passage of that bill failed. Since then, Congress has taken a more incremental approach to the uninsured. Congress passed legislation in 1996 to ensure portability of health insurance. A year later, the CHIP program was signed into law, bipartisan legislation to cover children of working families. And last year, we worked together to provide health coverage for workers who lost their jobs because of increased international trade. While these incremental steps have helped, we need to do more. Last year I introduced bipartisan legislation to provide employers with tax credits so they can offer their employees health insurance. And I am hopeful that the Baucus-Smith, OR bill can be enacted into law. But the fact remains, for most uninsured and underinsured Americans, the safety net is still the only place to turn. Yet, the safety net has been seriously damaged in recent years. According to report a few years ago by the Institute of Medicine, the health care safety net is ``intact but endangered.'' And according to a report I requested of the General Accounting Office, issued today, emergency departments across the nation are facing severe overcrowding problems, forced to send patients to other hospitals. The GAO found that about two-thirds of hospitals reported asking ambulances to be diverted to other hospitals at some point in fiscal year 2001. And about 10 percent of hospitals reported being on diversion status for more than 20 percent of the year. September 11 taught us that we need to be ready. Our emergency response systems must be prepared to manage an unexpected terrorist attack. But based on the GAO's findings, it seems that we are far from prepared. If emergency departments cannot care for all the patients they are sent under current conditions, how can we expect them to manage a terrorist attack of potentially catastrophic proportions? We need an entity responsible for recommending changes to our safety net, including our emergency departments. And though SNOPAC will not solve the problems of America's uninsured, it will work to ensure that safety net is not further frayed. An independent, non-partisan commission, modeled on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), SNOPAC will include professionals from across the policy and practical spectrum of health care. And like MedPAC, SNOPAC will report to the relevant committees of Congress on the status of its mission: tracking the well-being of the health care safety net. SNOPAC is not a panacea. But it is a positive step toward a coordinated approach in caring for the uninsured. Absent large-scale improvements in the number of insured Americans, we should at least work to monitor and care for what we already have--an intact, but endangered, health care safety net. I urge all my colleagues to join me in this effort towards good health and good sense.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to explain why I had to oppose Senator Corzine's amendment to increase funding for environmental and natural resource programs in the budget resolution. Let me be clear that I fully support the goals of Senator Corzine's amendment. While it is true that we are facing a tight budget situation, protecting our environment and the health and well-being of our citizens should remain a top priority. That includes setting aside adequate funding for programs such as the Superfund and Brownfields programs. But I was forced to vote against Senator Corzine's amendment because of another concern. My concern with mounting deficits. The budget resolution brought before us includes tax cuts that total $1.3 trillion. The budget also proposes that $725 billion of these tax cuts be enacted immediately, under the reconciliation process. Two years ago, we passed a $1.3 trillion tax cut. I supported that tax cut. But those were different times. We had a surplus. We did not foresee the significant decline in revenues. Or the deficits that followed. This is not the time to reduce revenues by $725 billion. It would hurt our budget and our economy. Why is $725 billion in tax cuts inappropriate at this time? The most crucial problem is that it is not paid for. The budget resolution brought before us forecasts enormous deficits for almost the next decade. Reducing revenues by $725 billion adds to the already mounting deficits. In order to prevent the passage of tax cuts that would drive up the deficit and hurt our economy, I believe that we must reduce the size of this tax cut. I joined three of my colleagues in a letter that laid out these concerns--we pledged that we would not agree to tax cuts above $350 billion. This is crucial. The Budget Committee approved $725 billion in tax cuts, and brought it to the Senate floor. Along with my colleagues, I promised to vote to bring this number down by $375 billion. In a narrowly divided Senate, it is important that both parties work together to come up with the appropriate spending and revenue targets for the budget. That is why I worked with both Democrats and Republicans. Together, we came up with a target of $350 billion for this tax cut, and we agreed that we would all stick to that number. As part of our commitment to try to reduce the size of the tax cut approved by the Budget Committee, we also agreed that we would not try to reduce the size of the tax cut below $350 billion. That means I am forced to make difficult decisions. In order to keep my commitment to a more responsible tax cut, I have to vote against funding priorities. During tough times, we must make tough choices. I chose to commit to a responsible tax cut. A tax cut that will prevent worsening deficits that would hurt our economy.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am in support of Senator Lautenberg's amendment to replenish the superfund trust fund, by reinstating the superfund taxes that expired in 1995. The trust fund is running dangerously low, and that is just not acceptable. As I've stated before, I remember very clearly when Congress debated the original superfund law, and I remember thinking what an incredible legacy Congress could leave the Nation by enacting that historic legislation. Seeing how successful superfund has been over the last 25 years, particularly in Libby, MT, reinforces my belief that we did the right thing for the people of this country when we created the superfund program. The superfund program brought millions of dollars to Montana for clean up activities, to protect the health and well being of Montana's citizens and create good paying jobs in the local communities left with a contaminated site. For example, more than $34 million has been spent in Libby alone in an effort to remove asbestos contamination caused by the now defunct WR Grace vermiculite mine, as well as to provide health screenings for Libby residents. Hundreds of millions have been spent in the Clark Fork basin to remedy decades of industrial pollution. Millions more will be spent to clean up the Berkeley Pit and other sites in the State. Some of this money will come from an identifiable, solvent responsible party, but much of it will not, as companies go out of business or declare bankruptcy. And, Montana is not alone. That is why maintaining the integrity of the superfund trust fund is so important. I'm extremely concerned that the more we fall behind in securing the funding necessary for clean-up activities at sites in Montana and around the country, the worse off we're going to be in future years. This has serious implications for the future stability of the superfund program. I don't believe it's fair to solve this problem by forcing the average taxpayer to pick up the tab for the clean up of toxic sites that were created by private entities, and which threaten our health and our children's health. That's why I strongly support reinstating the superfund tax, and why I support Senator Lautenberg's amendment. A Superfund designation is not a trivial event for the communities involved--it invokes real fear and uncertainty in people about the future, about the future economic health of their community, and about the future effects of any contamination on their health or their children's health. These communities cannot shoulder the immense burden of cleaning up highly contaminated sites by themselves, or forcing a responsible party to pay for the clean-up. The Federal Government is a necessary and important partner in this effort through the Superfund program. Superfund is a success; we should build on that success, not allow it to fall apart.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I re-introduced the Rural Heritage Conservation Act, along with my good friend Senator Grassley from Iowa. I would like to say a few words about why this bill is so important to my home state of Montana and to the Nation. We are losing precious agricultural and ranch lands at a record pace. Farming and ranching are the backbone of my state, comprising the largest sector of my state's economy. Not only do these farms and ranches provide Montana and the Nation with the highest quality food and fiber, they also provide wildlife habitat, open space and peace of mind. It is imperative that we help our hard-working farmers and ranchers preserve this precious heritage and their way-of-life. Conservation easements have been tremendously successful in preserving open space and wildlife habitat. Unfortunately, the way current tax law is structured makes it difficult for farmers and ranchers, who generally don't have much income, to take advantage of the tax benefits associated with donating conservation easements. They've been left behind by this important conservation tool. That's why I introduced the Rural Heritage Conservation Act. My bill will provide targeted income tax relief to small farmers and ranchers who wish to make a charitable contribution of a qualified conservation easement. The Rural Heritage Conservation Act would allow eligible farmers and ranchers to increase the amounts of deduction that may be taken currently for charitable contributions of qualified conservation easements by raising the Adjusted Gross Income limitations to 100 percent and extending the carryover period from 5 years to 15 years. In the case of all of the landowners, the AGI limitation would be raised from 30 percent to 50 percent. This is a win-win situation--farmers and ranchers will be able to preserve their important agricultural and ranching lands for future generations, while continuing to operate their businesses and stay on their land. It's a purely voluntary, incentive-based way to promote conservation. It will allow us to bring people together. Landowners, conservationists, the federal government, and local communities all can work together to preserve our precious natural resources. This legislation is vitally important to Montana, and to every other state in the Nation where important agricultural or ranching lands are being lost to rapid development, and a way-of-life is disappearing. I ask my colleagues to join with me and Senator Grassley to pass this bill as soon as possible and send it to the President's desk. We have to act now.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to comment briefly on my vote against Senator Harkin's amendment this afternoon. I do so because I was faced with a very difficult decision. I care very deeply about the education programs that would be funded through this amendment, programs that include afterschool programs and vocational education programs. These are critical programs in schools across my State, and I hope we find a way to fund them. But I am forced to vote against this amendment because of another concern--my concern with mounting deficits. The budget resolution brought before us includes tax cuts that total $1.3 trillion. The budget also proposes that $725 billion of these tax cuts be enacted immediately, under the reconciliation process. Two years ago, we passed a $1.3 trillion tax cut. I supported that tax cut. But those were different times. We had a surplus. We did not foresee the significant decline in revenues, or the deficits that followed. This is not the time to reduce revenues by $725 billion. It would hurt our budget and our economy. Why is $725 billion in tax cuts inappropriate at this time? The most crucial problem is that it is not paid for. The budget resolution brought before us forecasts enormous deficits for almost the next decade. Reducing revenues by $725 billion adds to the already mounting deficits. In order to prevent the passage of tax cuts that would drive up the deficit and hurt our economy, I believe that we must reduce the size of this tax cut. I joined three of my colleagues in a letter that laid out these concerns--we pledged that we would not agree to tax cuts above $350 billion. This is crucial. The Budget Committee approved $725 billion in tax cuts, and brought it to the Senate floor. Along with my colleagues, I promised to vote to bring this number down by $375 billion. In a narrowly divided Senate, it is important that both parties work together to come up with the appropriate spending and revenue targets for the budget. That is why I worked with both Democrats and Republicans. Together, we came up with a target of $350 billion for this tax cut, and we agreed that we would all stick to that number. As part of our commitment to try to reduce the size of the tax cut approved by the Budget Committee, we also agreed that we would not try to reduce the size of the tax cut below $350 billion. That means I am forced to make difficult decisions. In order to keep my commitment to a more responsible tax cut, I have to vote against funding priorities like the one presented by Senator Harkin. During tough times, we must make tough choices. I chose to commit to a responsible tax cut. A tax cut that will prevent worsening deficits that would hurt our economy.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask I be notified when I have consumed 1 minute.

Mr. BAUCUS. The administration's drug plan essentially abandons the 89 percent of senior citizens who are now on fee-for-service. How? By providing that seniors who stay in fee-for-service get catastrophic benefits and a discount card but they do not get additional drug benefits. However, if you are a senior and enroll in managed care, you are going to get a drug benefit, therefore, forcing seniors out of fee- for-service, into managed care. I might add this will also not save money. The managed care programs we have in our country are costing more than fee-for-service. They are costing more than the Federal Employees Health Benefit package. And seniors are dropping out of managed care because they are not getting the benefits they deserve.

Mr. BAUCUS. I urge Members to vote for this amendment which provides all seniors get the same drug benefit.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I re-introduced the Rural Heritage Conservation Act, along with my good friend Senator Grassley from Iowa. I would like to say a few words about why this bill is so important to my home state of Montana and to the Nation. We are losing precious agricultural and ranch lands at a record pace. Farming and ranching are the backbone of my state, comprising the largest sector of my state's economy. Not only do these farms and ranches provide Montana and the Nation with the highest quality food and fiber, they also provide wildlife habitat, open space and peace of mind. It is imperative that we help our hard-working farmers and ranchers preserve this precious heritage and their way-of-life. Conservation easements have been tremendously successful in preserving open space and wildlife habitat. Unfortunately, the way current tax law is structured makes it difficult for farmers and ranchers, who generally don't have much income, to take advantage of the tax benefits associated with donating conservation easements. They've been left behind by this important conservation tool. That's why I introduced the Rural Heritage Conservation Act. My bill will provide targeted income tax relief to small farmers and ranchers who wish to make a charitable contribution of a qualified conservation easement. The Rural Heritage Conservation Act would allow eligible farmers and ranchers to increase the amounts of deduction that may be taken currently for charitable contributions of qualified conservation easements by raising the Adjusted Gross Income limitations to 100 percent and extending the carryover period from 5 years to 15 years. In the case of all of the landowners, the AGI limitation would be raised from 30 percent to 50 percent. This is a win-win situation--farmers and ranchers will be able to preserve their important agricultural and ranching lands for future generations, while continuing to operate their businesses and stay on their land. It's a purely voluntary, incentive-based way to promote conservation. It will allow us to bring people together. Landowners, conservationists, the federal government, and local communities all can work together to preserve our precious natural resources. This legislation is vitally important to Montana, and to every other state in the Nation where important agricultural or ranching lands are being lost to rapid development, and a way-of-life is disappearing. I ask my colleagues to join with me and Senator Grassley to pass this bill as soon as possible and send it to the President's desk. We have to act now.