Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I call up amendment 348.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have an additional minute, I believe?

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to pledge my continued support for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Fully funding the Federal Government's share of special education costs is one of the most important investments we can make in our children and our schools. Funding IDEA to the full 40 percent will lift the burden of rising special education costs off the backs of our schools and enhance their ability to deliver a quality education to all students. I have consistently fought to make full funding of IDEA a reality, and I will continue to build on the progress we have made. 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. 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 have two additional points: One, we have never reduced taxes in a time of war. That is not the American way. We do not reduce taxes in a time of war. I ask you to just look at the TV screens. We are going to be over there for quite a while, in one way or another. Two, there are many ways to stimulate the economy, not only through tax reductions. It is also by spending. We are spending dollars on homeland security. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my fellow colleagues, Senators Breaux, Snowe and Voinovich, in support of this important amendment that works to reach a middle ground. This is a bipartisan amendment and will allow Congress to pass a responsible economic stimulus package, a package that will provide a real boost to the economy while not burdening our future generations with skyrocketing deficits. The budget resolution we are debating today includes a ``reconciliation'' instruction for the Finance Committee to reduce revenues by up to $725 billion over 10 years. This is the same amount of the President's economic stimulus package. And while I support tax cuts and have worked closely with the President in the past to enact tax cuts, I am very concerned by the size of his current package. First, we are at war and the immediate and long term costs of the conflict and reconstruction are unknown. Our economy is sluggish and we face rising unemployment. This is not the time to enact a package of tax cuts as large as the President has suggested. I recognize that the economy needs a shot in the arm. So I have joined my fellow Senators in offering this amendment to keep a stimulus package at $350 billion. And ensure that the $375 billion which is saved goes toward deficit reducing measures. Our amendment does not dictate what tax cuts should be passed out of the Finance Committee. It simply reduces the size of the tax cut. And I believe if this amendment is not passed, the Federal budget and the U.S. economy will be hurt significantly. As my colleagues know well, ``reconciliation'' instructions ensure that any legislation that is reported out by a Committee pursuant to those instructions enjoys special privileges when it is brought to the Senate floor. That means that the legislation only needs a simple majority of 51 votes to pass. In contrast, without reconciliation protection, legislation takes a supermajority of 60 votes to pass. Legislation under reconciliation instructions is also protected from non-germane amendments. Such amendments can create serious obstacles to the passage of legislation. But passage of a non-germane amendment to reconciliation legislation requires a supermajority of 60 votes. And this is usually difficult to achieve. What these special privileges really mean is that reconciliation legislation is more likely to pass the Senate. Unfortunately, passing legislation to reduce revenues by $725 billion would hurt our budget and our economy. I believe the budget resolution should not instruct the Finance Committee to make $725 billion of tax cuts. Why do I believe $725 billion of tax cuts is inappropriate? The most serious problem is that this enormous tax cut is not paid for. The Federal budget is facing huge annual deficits. This is happening at the worst possible time. In a few short years, the huge baby boom generation will begin to retire. The added costs for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will put a huge amount of additional stress on our budget. And on our economy too. With these budgetary and economic pressures looming, we should be running surpluses--not deficits--as soon as the economy returns to full employment in the near-term. We should be retiring debt, not creating it when the economy is at full employment. If this amendment does not pass, we are going to add an additional $375 billion in debt and deficits during the next ten years. This is during a period when the economy should be at full employment. What difference does it make if we run large deficits when the economy is at full employment? The answer is that large deficits eat up savings that would otherwise be used by businesses to invest in new plant and equipment. Without these investments, the economy will grow more slowly. And our future standard of living will be reduced. As well as the standard of living of our children and grandchildren. Once the economy is at full employment, large deficits will also cause long-term interest rates to go up. This will increase the cost of mortgages. And car loans. This will hurt the consumer. But it also will hurt the economy. Because people will buy fewer homes and cars. The simple truth is this. We cannot afford to increase Federal budget deficits by an additional $375 billion. If anything, we should reduce deficits, not add to them. With the concerns about the costs of a war and growing deficits, many of you may be asking why aren't we trying to eliminate the entire $725 billion package? The answer is that right now, the economy is not at full employment. That means that we need to encourage more spending. More spending will stimulate more production. And that will increase employment and return economic growth to its full potential. The $350 billion of tax cuts that we are leaving intact, therefore, should be used for tax cuts and program initiatives that would increase spending right now. And, the incentives to encourage more spending must also be temporary. Once the economy returns to full employment, the decrease in savings that would result from the increase in consumption will reduce investment. And that will lower our standard of living in the long-run. Again, I want to emphasize that we do not dictate what the tax cuts should be--we simply say the amount should be lower. But I believe there are three specific areas we should consider to effectively stimulate the economy in the short-run. First, probably the best short-run stimulus is increasing aid to state governments on a one-time basis. The recession and subsequent weak economy has severely reduced state revenues. States are facing budget deficits in the upcoming fiscal year of $70 to $85 billion. Unlike the Federal Government, almost all states have annual balanced budget requirements. So even though the economy is weak, States must lay off workers, cut spending programs, and increase taxes in order to balance their budgets. These actions make the economy even weaker. They also reduce important services that state governments provide. There is a remedy, however. By increasing Federal aid to states, states can avoid layoffs. Avoid cutting programs. And avoid increasing taxes. In contrast, any attempts by Congress that lack a state relief component will ultimately fail to stimulate the economy. Because efforts to spur the economy will fail if, at the same time, states are forced to raise taxes, cut spending, and eliminate jobs. Increased aid to state governments should only be made on a temporary basis, however. Once the economy improves, the increased aid must stop. Second, cutting taxes on households who are likely to spend those tax cuts quickly effectively stimulates the economy. The President's plan includes an acceleration of many of the tax cuts that were enacted in 2001. I fully support acceleration of some of the tax cuts that are primarily directed to those taxpayers who will spend most of the tax cuts they receive. Such as accelerating the reductions in the marriage penalty or the increases in the child tax credit. But, a portion of America's households will not receive any benefit at all under the President's plan. Therefore, I believe we also need to accelerate the reduction of marriage penalties for households receiving the earned income tax credit. And we also need to accelerate the refundable portion of the child tax credit from the 2001 tax cut. Acceleration of these tax cuts will give the economy a boost in the short run. But without increasing deficits in the long-run. Because the revenue losses are in the years when the acceleration takes place. There is no revenue loss in the years after that. Third, we can stimulate the economy by completely eliminating the income tax on the first $3,000 of wages. This proposal also puts money into the hands of taxpayers who will spend it. Especially if we make it refundable. Which will provide a tax cut to the 30 million Americans who are left out of the President's program. These are just three ways to stimulate the economy--aid to the states, acceleration of some tax cuts, and elimination of income tax on the first $3,000 of wages. Needless to say, there are other proposals that we should consider. Some of these other proposals include increased funding for highway construction, health insurance tax credits for businesses, and allowing small businesses to deduct more of their investments in plant and equipment. A reconciliation instruction of $350 billion of tax cuts to the Finance Committee can be used for several types of economic stimulus without increasing long-run deficits. But we cannot add to that a larger tax cut that will increase long-run deficits. That would weaken our economy. We cannot let that happen. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. President, while I have the floor, I also want to say that I will be proposing another amendment this evening, or tomorrow. My amendment is a very simple amendment. It would clarify the Medicare reserve fund language to say that beneficiaries who choose to remain in the current fee-for-service program which, I might add, is 89 percent of all seniors right now should get the same drug benefit as those who choose to enroll in a private plan. Let's put aside the question of whether $400 billion is enough for an adequate drug benefit. Having spent a lot of time reviewing the cost of different benefit levels, I know that $400 billion buys a rather paltry benefit. But whatever benefit level we can afford with that amount, we should make sure that the same benefit is available to seniors who choose to stay in the fee-for-service program as those who enroll in an HMO, a PPO or any other sort of private plan in Medicare. I believe that is the commitment many of us have made to our seniors, and that is the commitment we ought to fulfill. Earlier this month, President Bush unveiled his vision for Medicare reform. I am pleased that he doubled the amount of money he is willing to spend on a prescription drug benefit over what he proposed last year. But I am concerned that the President's vision for reform is to privatize the program. He would give a comprehensive drug benefit to seniors who enroll in private plans. But those who choose to stay where they are now, in the fee-for-service program, would get only a discount card and catastrophic coverage. That is not something I am willing to support. Let me explain why. First, we already know that private plans have had difficulties serving the Medicare population. Many of my colleagues may recall that the reason Medicare was created in the first place was because so many seniors were ill-served by the private market. About half of the elderly were uninsured in 1965. Because of Medicare, now nearly all elderly are covered. More recently, since Medicare+ Choice was created in 1997 to expand private plan options in Medicare, we have seen a dramatic drop in the number of HMOs participating in the program. And as a result, an estimated 2.4 million beneficiaries have lost their health plan. As you can see by this chart, only 875 counties across the country currently have a Medicare managed care plan. That is out of a total of 3,200 counties. So more than 2,300 counties don't have access to managed care plans or PPOs. Looking at this map, I might add that the counties without these plans are predominantly rural. And it is not that plans are underpaid, as some might try to argue. The average payment to Medicare+Choice plans is currently 104 percent of local fee-for-service costs. That figure doesn't tell the whole story, but it does suggest that simply increasing payments will not draw private plans into rural areas. My own state of Montana is a good example. The floor payment for Medicare+Choice plans in Montana is 128 percent of local fee-for- service costs. Yet, we don't have any HMOs or PPOs in my state. Let me repeat that: despite a payment rate that is 28 percent higher than traditional Medicare, private health plans are still not serving Montana seniors. All this leads me to the second reason I do not support the President's proposal it doesn't save any money. Moving beneficiaries into private plans will not save the program for the next generation and will do nothing to address Medicare solvency. We can all talk about coordination of care, disease management, and the potential efficiencies private plans might be able to achieve. But at the end of the day, private health plans are subject to the same cost pressures affecting the entire health care system. Just look at the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, FEHB. This plan serves federal employees, retirees, and their dependents and has been held up as a model for Medicare reform. Yet we find that FEHB premiums have increased, on average, by more than 10 percent each year in the last 5 years. Far faster than Medicare's per capita costs. Third, and finally, I don't support a differential drug benefit, because it is just not fair to make beneficiaries move into a private plan to get a drug benefit. In Montana, virtually all beneficiaries are in traditional Medicare. That means, in order for them to get a drug benefit, they would need to drop their supplemental coverage and enroll in a private plan accepting all the restrictions, preferred networks, and coverage limitations that come along with the plan. For a senior who may be older, used to what she currently has, and to anyone with a chronic health condition, this is a frightening proposition. As the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Tauzin so aptly said recently, ``You couldn't move my own mother out of Medicare without a bulldozer. She trusts it, believes in it. It's served her well.'' That is the case with millions of seniors around the country. They like what they have now, and they want to stay there. They need a drug benefit, they have been pressing Congress to act for months, years now, and they don't believe they should have to swallow such far-reaching reforms to get the help they need. And the more we delay, the more expensive it gets to provide this benefit. In the 4 years that Congress has been seriously debating Medicare prescription drugs, we have considered a range of options. And we've seen the CBO scores for these proposals go up and up as we've taken longer and longer to act. While there are differences in the bills we have debated, they all have one thing in common. They would offer all seniors the same level of drug benefit if they chose to enroll in the new benefit. Not just private plan or HMO enrollees, but all beneficiaries. In closing, I would like to point out that 90 Members of the Senate who are here today voted in favor of legislation last summer that would uphold this principle. I think we should keep the commitment we made last summer. I am happy to work with the administration and my colleagues across the aisle on ways to improve and increase private plan participation in Medicare. But we need to make sure that the benefit is provided in full to fee- for-service beneficiaries as well as private plan enrollees. For the sake of America's seniors, particularly the oldest, the sickest, and the most frail, and for the sake of America's rural seniors, I urge adoption of this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment to increase highway and transit spending levels in the budget resolution. Increasing transportation spending is an important objective. Highway investments create jobs, increase the productivity of our economy, and improve the quality of life for all Americans. In Montana, its our lifeblood. We count on highway money for our economic development and we count on transit money to give our rural areas access to goods and services and people. In 1998 Congress passed one of the most successful and bipartisan bills in recent memory--the ``Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century'', better known as ``TEA-21.'' I am honored to have been an author of that piece of legislation and I look forward to working on the next reauthorization act. TEA-21 passed overwhelmingly in 1997 because there was a 40 percent increase, on average, in funding. So, even if some states got a lower percentage of funds than their neighbor, everyone brought home more dollars than under ISTEA. That 40 percent increase was primarily derived by the transfer of the 4.3 cent gas tax from the general fund to the Highway Trust Fund, the new budgetary treatment for highways and the ``protected'' status of the Highway Trust Fund. We are hoping to build on the success of TEA-21 by ensuring that our Budget Resolution can accommodate higher levels of spending for highways and transit. These higher levels of spending will enable the successor to TEA-21 to become law. In order to pass a TEA-21 reauthorization bill, we will need more money. Increasing funds into the Highway Trust Fund is the sole responsibility of the Senate Finance Committee. Senator Grassley and I have been working very hard to find ways to increase funding for both highways and transit. We are absolutely committed to growing the programs without raising taxes. I can't emphasize enough that the single principal feature of any new highway reauthorization bill has to be its increased funding for the program, something that will help all States and all citizens. Our first step is this blueprint for our budget. The Finance Committee believes that the levels included in this amendment to the Budget Resolution can be reached. $255 billion for Highways and $56.5 billion for transit over 6 years can be achieved without raising taxes. I know this because over the past 3 months finding this money has been a priority for myself and my chairman, Senator Grassley. Let me sum up by saying that the Senate Finance Committee has the responsibility to figure out how to grow the highway and transit programs. We believe that we can come up with increased funding for both highways and transit. We can do it without raising taxes. This amendment gives us the room to achieve that. I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes for increased investment in infrastructure. I say both sides of the aisle because, as I've said in the past, there are no Democratic roads or Republican bridges. We will all benefit from this investment. We should all support it.

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. This is a solemn day for our Nation. I rise today to add my voice to the chorus of support and prayers that are being sent from this Chamber to our brave and heroic troops in the deserts of Iraq. The men and women who are serving the country on the front lines are sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, and mothers and fathers. Their heroic military service is helping bring an end to a brutal regime and reducing terrorist threats by stopping those who provide assistance to terrorist operations. I know they will be successful in their mission. While many differences of opinion were expressed about the way this war came to be, the time for debate has ended. We now remain steadfast in support of our troops. And we must look to tomorrow and the massive rebuilding that will be needed following military actions. It is important that we continue to work with our allies to build a stronger coalition of support. We will need our friends in the coming days and weeks. And we must also focus on providing our troops with all the assistance and resources they need. With that in mind, I would like to take a moment to urge support of the ``Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2003.'' The House passed this important bill today. And it passed smoothly out of the Finance Committee weeks ago. It very much ties in with the remarks of the Senator from Alaska, that our valiant men and women overseas don't get overtime pay. And the very least we can do is voluntary work and other ways to help our troops this bill fits into that suggestion. In this time of war, I can think of nothing more appropriate than passing a bill that is dedicated to providing assistance to those who serve in our armed forces. In addition, our bill encourages more women and men across the country to join our armed forces. There are many, many brave men and women from my state of Montana who are playing a pivotal role in Iraq. Following the events of September 11, members of the 120th Fighter Wing of the Montana Air National Guard were called to secure the skies of the no-fly zone over Iraq. Their bravery will once again be seen in the current operation. I want to help members of 120th Fighter Wing, and every other member of our armed forces. We can do this by passing the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act. Let me describe some of the key provisions. Under our current tax code, if a member of the armed forces dies while on active duty, the federal government pays the surviving spouse a small death benefit of $6,000. The entire amount should be excluded from taxable income. However, because of a glitch in the law, only half is excluded. Our legislation corrects this by excluding the entire $6,000 payment. Just last week, one of our soldiers from Montana, Private First Class Stryder Stoutenburg, was tragically killed during a Blackhawk helicopter crash. A native of Missoula, Private First Class Stoutenburg was only 18 years old. 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. Another provision of this bill would ensure that military members who are frequently required to move from town to town and country to country, are not punished with capital gains taxes when they sell their homes. Under current law, an individual must live in their house for 2 of 5 years in order to qualify for capital gains taxes exclusion. This isn't feasible for many in the armed forces and our bill would eliminate the 2-year requirement. A third provision seeks to take a financial burden off of our men and women who serve in the National Guard and the Reserves. Many reservists must travel away from home for weekend drills and wind up spending a substantial amount of money for overnight travel and lodging. In fact, for many of our younger, more junior reservists, the expenses exceed their take home pay for the weekend. Our bill would allow them to deduct these expenses from their taxes, even if the expenses do not exceed the 2 percent floor. In addition to providing financial assistance, this bill will not add to the deficit since it's completely offset in two ways. First, we improve the collection of unpaid taxes from people who have renounced their American citizenship in order to avoid future U.S. taxes. Second, we extend certain IRS user fees. These are modest, sensible changes. In fact, in the case of expatriates, the offset seems especially timely. There is no better time than today to pass legislation that will allow our military personnel to fight for our country, not have to fight the tax code. I know that the thoughts of every single Member of Congress go out to the troops who are risking their lives. We pray for their fast and safe return home. I'm hopeful for quick passage of this bill that will provide needed tax relief for our troops. I thank Members who contributed to the development of the bill: Senators Levin and Warner of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Landrieu, Senator Johnson, Senator Harkin. And especially I thank Chairman Grassley of the Fiance Committee who I have enjoyed working with and who, once again, in this case has helped us to develop an important piece of bipartisan tax legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. I make that request.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer, along with Senator Craig, much needed trade legislation. I also want to thank Senators Bayh and Rockefeller for their support for this legislation. The bill that we are introducing would create a Commission to review decisions of the World Trade Organization. Why is this legislation necessary? Simply put--we must ensure that the United States is getting the benefit of the agreements we negotiated. WTO panels have handed down several decisions recently that go well beyond the scope of their authority. These decisions have had a wide- ranging impact, undermining our ability to use antidumping and safeguard laws and calling major portions of the U.S. tax code into question. Most recently, the WTO ruled that the so-called ``Byrd Amendment'' violates WTO rules. In fact, the Byrd Amendment simply takes duties collected on unfairly traded products out of the U.S. Treasury and redistributes them to companies and workers hurt by that unfair trade. The Byrd Amendment adds no burden whatsoever on imports. But despite this, a WTO panel has inexplicably ruled that this law imposes an impermissible penalty for dumping. I would note here that the Administration has proposed repealing the Byrd Amendment. I strongly oppose that. And so does an overwhelming majority of the Senate. In fact, last month 70 Senators sent a letter to the President in support of this important law. Another area that I have great concerns about involves the softwood lumber dispute. The WTO currently found that Canada subsidizes its lumber industry, and I applaud that decision. But then the WTO undercut the benefits of that decision. They ruled that when determining a market price, Commerce must use the subsidy- distorted Canadian timber prices rather than the market-based U.S. prices. This practice is wholly inconsistent with previous WTO practice. We need to start seriously examining why it is that we are losing these and other cases. In my view, it is because WTO panels have ceased intepreting our trade agreements and have begun legislating. Instead of following the rules, they are flouting the rules. And they are substituting their own judgment in place of carefully negotiated principles. In the process, they are eroding U.S. trade laws, taking away rights the U.S. bargained for, and imposing new obligations we never agreed to accept. Just as troubling, they are doing so mostly under the radar of Congress and the American public. The purpose of the legislation Senator Craig and I are proposing is to open the performance of WTO panels to public debate. Under the legislation, the President, in consultation with Congress, would create a Commission by appointing 5 retired federal appellate judges to serve 5-year terms. The Commission would review WTO decisions adverse to the United States to examine whether the panelists have exceeded their authority. The Commissioners would then report their findings to Congress. Increasing the transparency of the WTO in this manner is entirely consistent with the Administration's stated objectives. It would also allow us to discuss openly and fairly whether the WTO is working as it should. The legislation offers something for everyone. If the Commission finds that the WTO is applying the rules properly it will silence critics--and perhaps earn converts. But if the WTO is in fact straying beyond the carefully negotiated boundaries of our trade agreements, Congress needs to have the oversight in place so that we can remedy the situation. I understand and support the need for a global trading system. But we need to ensure that the WTO is respecting the limits of its authority and honestly applying the rules under which it operates. I hope that my colleagues will join me in helping to pass this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer, along with Senator Craig, much needed trade legislation. I also want to thank Senators Bayh and Rockefeller for their support for this legislation. The bill that we are introducing would create a Commission to review decisions of the World Trade Organization. Why is this legislation necessary? Simply put--we must ensure that the United States is getting the benefit of the agreements we negotiated. WTO panels have handed down several decisions recently that go well beyond the scope of their authority. These decisions have had a wide- ranging impact, undermining our ability to use antidumping and safeguard laws and calling major portions of the U.S. tax code into question. Most recently, the WTO ruled that the so-called ``Byrd Amendment'' violates WTO rules. In fact, the Byrd Amendment simply takes duties collected on unfairly traded products out of the U.S. Treasury and redistributes them to companies and workers hurt by that unfair trade. The Byrd Amendment adds no burden whatsoever on imports. But despite this, a WTO panel has inexplicably ruled that this law imposes an impermissible penalty for dumping. I would note here that the Administration has proposed repealing the Byrd Amendment. I strongly oppose that. And so does an overwhelming majority of the Senate. In fact, last month 70 Senators sent a letter to the President in support of this important law. Another area that I have great concerns about involves the softwood lumber dispute. The WTO currently found that Canada subsidizes its lumber industry, and I applaud that decision. But then the WTO undercut the benefits of that decision. They ruled that when determining a market price, Commerce must use the subsidy- distorted Canadian timber prices rather than the market-based U.S. prices. This practice is wholly inconsistent with previous WTO practice. We need to start seriously examining why it is that we are losing these and other cases. In my view, it is because WTO panels have ceased intepreting our trade agreements and have begun legislating. Instead of following the rules, they are flouting the rules. And they are substituting their own judgment in place of carefully negotiated principles. In the process, they are eroding U.S. trade laws, taking away rights the U.S. bargained for, and imposing new obligations we never agreed to accept. Just as troubling, they are doing so mostly under the radar of Congress and the American public. The purpose of the legislation Senator Craig and I are proposing is to open the performance of WTO panels to public debate. Under the legislation, the President, in consultation with Congress, would create a Commission by appointing 5 retired federal appellate judges to serve 5-year terms. The Commission would review WTO decisions adverse to the United States to examine whether the panelists have exceeded their authority. The Commissioners would then report their findings to Congress. Increasing the transparency of the WTO in this manner is entirely consistent with the Administration's stated objectives. It would also allow us to discuss openly and fairly whether the WTO is working as it should. The legislation offers something for everyone. If the Commission finds that the WTO is applying the rules properly it will silence critics--and perhaps earn converts. But if the WTO is in fact straying beyond the carefully negotiated boundaries of our trade agreements, Congress needs to have the oversight in place so that we can remedy the situation. I understand and support the need for a global trading system. But we need to ensure that the WTO is respecting the limits of its authority and honestly applying the rules under which it operates. I hope that my colleagues will join me in helping to pass this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that I and my good friend from Idaho, Senator Craig, have introduced yesterday. This bill already enjoys strong bi-partisan support--Senator Craig and I are joined by over 50 other co-sponsors, both Democrat and Republican. This bill will correct a significant injustice that threatens the viability of a lawful United States industry, the firearms industry. An increasing number of lawsuits are being filed against the firearms industry seeking damages for wrongs committed by third persons who misuse the industry's products. These lawsuits seek to impose liability on lawful businesses for the actions of people over whom the firearms industry has no control. This is just outrageous. Businesses that comply with all applicable Federal and State laws, that produce a product fit for its intended lawful purpose--be it elk hunting, duck hunting, target shooting or for personal protection--should not be subject to frivolous lawsuits that have only one goal--to put them out of business. This an unacceptable burden on lawful interstate commerce. That's why Senator Craig and I have introduced the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The bill is carefully tailored to bar actions against firearms manufacturers or dealers that are based solely on the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearms by third parties. The bill would not block legitimate actions against the firearms industry for cases involving defective firearms, breaches of contract, criminal behavior by a firearm manufacturer or seller, or the negligent entrustment of a firearm to an irresponsible person. This is only fair and right. The U.S. firearms industry serves America's gun owners and sportsmen well, and provides good-paying jobs for many Americans. They shouldn't be penalized just for legally producing or selling a product that functions as designed and intended. I would ask all of my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. It is very important that we take up and pass this bill as soon as possible.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Grassley in introducing the Tax Empowerment and Relief for Farmers and Fishermen Act. Rural America has been experiencing some hard times. Drought, low prices, and an economic downturn have left agricultural producers in dire straits and have left rural economies reeling. Farmers and ranchers are the life blood to rural economies, and when agriculture is hurting, rural America hurts. Small towns are dying, stores on Main Street are closing and farmers are leaving their land. Congress has worked hard to help our nation's agricultural producers, but with this bill, we are giving them the tools to help themselves. This package includes Farm, Fish, and Ranch Risk Management Accounts, otherwise known as FFARRM Accounts. These farmer savings accounts would allow farmers to contribute up to 20 percent of their income to a savings account, and deduct it in the same year. FFARRM accounts would be a very important risk management tool to help farmers put away money when there's actual income, so that in the really bad times there would be a safety net. This legislation also reverses unfair IRS decisions on self- employment tax for farmers. Farmers who participate in the Conservation Reserve Program are unnecessarily struggling during tax season because of a case pursued by the IRS. The latest 6th-Circuit Court ruling treats CRP as farm income subject to the additional self-employment tax rate of 15 percent. This unfair tax not only ignores the intent of Congress in creating the CRP, but it also discourages farmers from using environmentally pro-active measures. The bill also includes a provision to reverse an IRS attempt to apply the self-employment tax on farmers' cash rental income. Also included in the package is a provision to hold farmers harmless from the Alternative Minimum Tax when they use income averaging. When Congress passed income averaging for farmers a few years ago, it neglected to take into account the problem of running into the alternative minimum tax, which many farmers are facing now. This legislation will fix this growing problem. It also contains an expansion of first-time farmer loans, or Aggie Bonds. This expands opportunities for beginning farmers who need low- interest rate loans for purchases of farmland and equipment. Current law permits state authorities to issue tax-exempt bonds and to lend the proceeds from the sale of the bonds to beginning farmers and ranchers to finance the cost of acquiring land, buildings and equipment used in a farm or ranch operation. Unfortunately, Aggie Bonds are subjected to a volume cap and must compete with big industrial projects for bond allocation. Aggie Bonds share few similarities to Industrial Revenue Bonds and should not be subjected to the volume cap established for IRBs. Insufficient allocation of funding due to the volume cap limits the effectiveness of this program. Farmer co-op initiatives are also included. Recently the IRS determined that some cooperatives should be exposed to a regular corporate tax due to the fact that they are using organic value-added practices rather than manufactured value-added practices. The bill also would permit small cooperative producers of ethanol to receive the same tax benefits as large companies. Another important provision provides tax relief for ranchers that are forced to sell their livestock on account of drought. The bill gives producers the time they need to reinvest proceeds tax-free when drought makes it impossible to feed their herds. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this crucial piece of legislation.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to again join with my friend, Senator Hatch, and my other colleagues, in introducing legislation to make a permanent commitment to research-intensive businesses in the United States. This legislation is bipartisan and bicameral. A companion bill was introduced in January in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Nancy Johnson and Congressman Robert Matsui. Every morning we here news of some new product or discovery that promises to make our jobs easier or our lives better. Many of these innovations started with a business decision to hire needed researchers and finance the expensive and long process of research and experimentation. Since 1981, when the R&D tax credit was first enacted, the federal government was a partner in that business endeavor because of the potential spillover benefits to society overall from additional research spending. Research has shown that a tax credit is a cost-effective way to promote R&D. The General Accounting Office, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the National Bureau of Economic Research, and others have all found significant evidence that a tax credit stimulates additional domestic R&D spending by U.S. companies. A reported by the Congressional Research Service, CRS, indicates that economists generally agree that, without government support, firm investment in R&D would fall short of the socially optimal amount and thus CRS advocates government policies to boost private sector R&D. R&D is linked to broader economic and labor benefits. R&D lays the foundation for technological innovation, which, in turn, is an important driving force in long-term economic growth--mainly through its impact on the productivity of capital and labor. We have many times heard testimony from economists, including Federal Research Board Alan Greenspan, that the reason our economy grew at such breakneck speed during the 1990s stemmed from the productivity growth we realized thanks to technological innovations. There has been a belief that companies would continue to increase their research spending and that the benefits of these investments on the economy and labor markets would continue without end. Unfortunately, that is not the case. New data compiled by Battelle Memorial Institute and R&D Magazine project that for 2003, U.S. company spending on research will be mostly flat for the second year in a row. According to this report, companies plan a 0.1 percent increase in R&D spending in 2003. Spending in 2002 rose a mere 0.3 percent over 2001 levels. This compares to 2001 when R&D spending grew by 5 percent over the previous year. Those numbers should be a wake up call for all of us. As research spending falls, so too will the level of future economic growth. It is also important to recognize that many of our foreign competitors are offering permanent and generous incentives to firms that attract research dollars to those countries. A 2001 study by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, ranked the U.S. ninth behind other nations in terms of its incentives for business R&D spending. Countries that provide more generous R&D incentives include Spain, Canada, Portugal, Austria, Australia, Netherlands, France, and Korea. The United Kingdom was added to this list in 2002 when it further expanded its existing R&D incentives program. The continued absence of a long-term U.S. government R&D policy that encourages U.S.-based R&D will undermine the ability of American companies to remain competitive in U.S. and foreign markets. This disparity could limit U.S. competitiveness relative to its trading partners in the long-run. Also, U.S. workers who are engaged in R&D activities currently benefit from some of the most intellectually stimulating, high-paying, high- skilled jobs in the economy. My own State of Montana is an excellent example of this economic activity. During the 1990s, about 400 establishments provided high-technology services, at an average wage of about $35,000 per year. These jobs paid nearly 80 percent more than the average private sector wage of less than $20,000 per year during the same year. Many of these jobs would never have been created without the assistance of the R&D credit. While there may not be an immediate rush to move all projects and jobs offshore, there has been movement at the margins on those projects that are most cost-sensitive. Once those projects and jobs are gone, it will be many years before companies will have any incentive to bring them back to the United States. We continue to grapple with the need to stimulate economic growth and advance policies that represent solid long-term investments that will reap benefits for many years to come. Senator Hatch and I repeatedly have pointed to the R&E tax credit as a measure that gives us a good ``bang for our buck.'' I hope this year we can enact a permanent tax credit that is effective and more widely available. I encourage my colleagues to join us in this effort. As we have in years past, our proposal would make the current research and experimentation tax credit permanent and increase the Alternative Incremental Research Credit, AIRC, rates. This year we take one additional but necessary step. We propose a new alternative simplified credit that will allow taxpayers to elect to calculate the R&D credit under new computational rules that will eliminate the present-law distortions caused by gross receipts. There is no good policy reason to make research more expensive for some industries than for others. While the regular R&E tax credit works very well for many companies, as the credit's base period recedes and business cycles change, the current credit is out of reach for some other firms that still incur significant research expenditures. To help solve part of this problem Congress enacted the AIRC in 1996 and now we propose a way to address the rest of that problem. Under current law, both the regular credit and the AIRC are calculated by reference to a taxpayer's gross receipts, a benchmark that can produce inequities and anomalous results. For example, many taxpayers are no longer able to qualify for the regular credit, despite substantial R&D investments, because their R&D spending relative to gross receipts has not kept pace with the ratio set in the 1984-88 base period, which governs calculation of the regular credit. This can happen, for example, simply where a company's sales increase significantly in the intervening years, where a company enters into an additional line of business that generates additional gross receipts but involves little R&D, or where a company becomes more efficient in its R&D processes. Our proposal would correct this by allowing taxpayers a straightforward alternative research credit election. Taxpayers could elect, in lieu of the regular credit or the AIRC, a credit that would equal 12 percent of the excess of the taxpayer's current year qualified research expenditures, ``QREs'', over 50 percent of the taxpayer's average QREs for the 3 preceding years. Unlike the regular credit and the AIRC, this credit calculation does not involve gross receipts. The R&D tax credit has proven it can be an effective incentive. We need to act to make it a permanent part of the tax code that U.S. businesses can rely on. The best thing we can do for our long-term economic well-being is to stoke the engine of growth--technology, high- wage jobs and productivity. I look forward to working with Sen. Hatch and all my colleagues on this important issue. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Grassley in introducing the Tax Empowerment and Relief for Farmers and Fishermen Act. Rural America has been experiencing some hard times. Drought, low prices, and an economic downturn have left agricultural producers in dire straits and have left rural economies reeling. Farmers and ranchers are the life blood to rural economies, and when agriculture is hurting, rural America hurts. Small towns are dying, stores on Main Street are closing and farmers are leaving their land. Congress has worked hard to help our nation's agricultural producers, but with this bill, we are giving them the tools to help themselves. This package includes Farm, Fish, and Ranch Risk Management Accounts, otherwise known as FFARRM Accounts. These farmer savings accounts would allow farmers to contribute up to 20 percent of their income to a savings account, and deduct it in the same year. FFARRM accounts would be a very important risk management tool to help farmers put away money when there's actual income, so that in the really bad times there would be a safety net. This legislation also reverses unfair IRS decisions on self- employment tax for farmers. Farmers who participate in the Conservation Reserve Program are unnecessarily struggling during tax season because of a case pursued by the IRS. The latest 6th-Circuit Court ruling treats CRP as farm income subject to the additional self-employment tax rate of 15 percent. This unfair tax not only ignores the intent of Congress in creating the CRP, but it also discourages farmers from using environmentally pro-active measures. The bill also includes a provision to reverse an IRS attempt to apply the self-employment tax on farmers' cash rental income. Also included in the package is a provision to hold farmers harmless from the Alternative Minimum Tax when they use income averaging. When Congress passed income averaging for farmers a few years ago, it neglected to take into account the problem of running into the alternative minimum tax, which many farmers are facing now. This legislation will fix this growing problem. It also contains an expansion of first-time farmer loans, or Aggie Bonds. This expands opportunities for beginning farmers who need low- interest rate loans for purchases of farmland and equipment. Current law permits state authorities to issue tax-exempt bonds and to lend the proceeds from the sale of the bonds to beginning farmers and ranchers to finance the cost of acquiring land, buildings and equipment used in a farm or ranch operation. Unfortunately, Aggie Bonds are subjected to a volume cap and must compete with big industrial projects for bond allocation. Aggie Bonds share few similarities to Industrial Revenue Bonds and should not be subjected to the volume cap established for IRBs. Insufficient allocation of funding due to the volume cap limits the effectiveness of this program. Farmer co-op initiatives are also included. Recently the IRS determined that some cooperatives should be exposed to a regular corporate tax due to the fact that they are using organic value-added practices rather than manufactured value-added practices. The bill also would permit small cooperative producers of ethanol to receive the same tax benefits as large companies. Another important provision provides tax relief for ranchers that are forced to sell their livestock on account of drought. The bill gives producers the time they need to reinvest proceeds tax-free when drought makes it impossible to feed their herds. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this crucial piece of legislation.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to again join with my friend, Senator Hatch, and my other colleagues, in introducing legislation to make a permanent commitment to research-intensive businesses in the United States. This legislation is bipartisan and bicameral. A companion bill was introduced in January in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Nancy Johnson and Congressman Robert Matsui. Every morning we here news of some new product or discovery that promises to make our jobs easier or our lives better. Many of these innovations started with a business decision to hire needed researchers and finance the expensive and long process of research and experimentation. Since 1981, when the R&D tax credit was first enacted, the federal government was a partner in that business endeavor because of the potential spillover benefits to society overall from additional research spending. Research has shown that a tax credit is a cost-effective way to promote R&D. The General Accounting Office, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the National Bureau of Economic Research, and others have all found significant evidence that a tax credit stimulates additional domestic R&D spending by U.S. companies. A reported by the Congressional Research Service, CRS, indicates that economists generally agree that, without government support, firm investment in R&D would fall short of the socially optimal amount and thus CRS advocates government policies to boost private sector R&D. R&D is linked to broader economic and labor benefits. R&D lays the foundation for technological innovation, which, in turn, is an important driving force in long-term economic growth--mainly through its impact on the productivity of capital and labor. We have many times heard testimony from economists, including Federal Research Board Alan Greenspan, that the reason our economy grew at such breakneck speed during the 1990s stemmed from the productivity growth we realized thanks to technological innovations. There has been a belief that companies would continue to increase their research spending and that the benefits of these investments on the economy and labor markets would continue without end. Unfortunately, that is not the case. New data compiled by Battelle Memorial Institute and R&D Magazine project that for 2003, U.S. company spending on research will be mostly flat for the second year in a row. According to this report, companies plan a 0.1 percent increase in R&D spending in 2003. Spending in 2002 rose a mere 0.3 percent over 2001 levels. This compares to 2001 when R&D spending grew by 5 percent over the previous year. Those numbers should be a wake up call for all of us. As research spending falls, so too will the level of future economic growth. It is also important to recognize that many of our foreign competitors are offering permanent and generous incentives to firms that attract research dollars to those countries. A 2001 study by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, ranked the U.S. ninth behind other nations in terms of its incentives for business R&D spending. Countries that provide more generous R&D incentives include Spain, Canada, Portugal, Austria, Australia, Netherlands, France, and Korea. The United Kingdom was added to this list in 2002 when it further expanded its existing R&D incentives program. The continued absence of a long-term U.S. government R&D policy that encourages U.S.-based R&D will undermine the ability of American companies to remain competitive in U.S. and foreign markets. This disparity could limit U.S. competitiveness relative to its trading partners in the long-run. Also, U.S. workers who are engaged in R&D activities currently benefit from some of the most intellectually stimulating, high-paying, high- skilled jobs in the economy. My own State of Montana is an excellent example of this economic activity. During the 1990s, about 400 establishments provided high-technology services, at an average wage of about $35,000 per year. These jobs paid nearly 80 percent more than the average private sector wage of less than $20,000 per year during the same year. Many of these jobs would never have been created without the assistance of the R&D credit. While there may not be an immediate rush to move all projects and jobs offshore, there has been movement at the margins on those projects that are most cost-sensitive. Once those projects and jobs are gone, it will be many years before companies will have any incentive to bring them back to the United States. We continue to grapple with the need to stimulate economic growth and advance policies that represent solid long-term investments that will reap benefits for many years to come. Senator Hatch and I repeatedly have pointed to the R&E tax credit as a measure that gives us a good ``bang for our buck.'' I hope this year we can enact a permanent tax credit that is effective and more widely available. I encourage my colleagues to join us in this effort. As we have in years past, our proposal would make the current research and experimentation tax credit permanent and increase the Alternative Incremental Research Credit, AIRC, rates. This year we take one additional but necessary step. We propose a new alternative simplified credit that will allow taxpayers to elect to calculate the R&D credit under new computational rules that will eliminate the present-law distortions caused by gross receipts. There is no good policy reason to make research more expensive for some industries than for others. While the regular R&E tax credit works very well for many companies, as the credit's base period recedes and business cycles change, the current credit is out of reach for some other firms that still incur significant research expenditures. To help solve part of this problem Congress enacted the AIRC in 1996 and now we propose a way to address the rest of that problem. Under current law, both the regular credit and the AIRC are calculated by reference to a taxpayer's gross receipts, a benchmark that can produce inequities and anomalous results. For example, many taxpayers are no longer able to qualify for the regular credit, despite substantial R&D investments, because their R&D spending relative to gross receipts has not kept pace with the ratio set in the 1984-88 base period, which governs calculation of the regular credit. This can happen, for example, simply where a company's sales increase significantly in the intervening years, where a company enters into an additional line of business that generates additional gross receipts but involves little R&D, or where a company becomes more efficient in its R&D processes. Our proposal would correct this by allowing taxpayers a straightforward alternative research credit election. Taxpayers could elect, in lieu of the regular credit or the AIRC, a credit that would equal 12 percent of the excess of the taxpayer's current year qualified research expenditures, ``QREs'', over 50 percent of the taxpayer's average QREs for the 3 preceding years. Unlike the regular credit and the AIRC, this credit calculation does not involve gross receipts. The R&D tax credit has proven it can be an effective incentive. We need to act to make it a permanent part of the tax code that U.S. businesses can rely on. The best thing we can do for our long-term economic well-being is to stoke the engine of growth--technology, high- wage jobs and productivity. I look forward to working with Sen. Hatch and all my colleagues on this important issue. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a young man from Missoula, MT, who was killed when the Army helicopter he was riding in crashed in the remote woods of New York State during a training exercise. PFC Stoutenburg was among the 11 people in his 13-person unit killed in the Black Hawk crash. PFC Stoutenburg was only 18 years old. Like his fellow men and women in uniform, PFC Stoutenburg dedicated his life to defending our country and upholding the principles it was founded upon. As a member of the 10th Mountain Division based at Fort Drum, NY, he trained not only to defend the United States against aggressors but also to uphold our country's greatest values--freedom, liberty, equality, and democracy. PFC Stoutenburg's sacrifices for his State and country make all of us proud to be Montanans and Americans. He truly did his part to hold the bright torch during the dark night that will guide the way to a brighter day of democracy and stability around the world. His tragic death is a reminder that our freedom is the result of the courageous men and women who everyday face great risk while defending our country. PFC Stryder Stoutenburg is survived by his mother Jane; maternal grandmother, Joyce Sleep of Dade City, FL; two sisters, Laurel Miller of Middletown, NY, and Joyce Rodriguez of Harrisonburg, VA; and two nieces and two nephews.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I walked over to the floor without realizing we were giving a testament to General Lenhardt. But I could not agree more with the words I heard from Senator Daschle, as well as the words from Senator Reid of Nevada. It is true, as I reflect upon it, that I know of no man who contributed greater service for his country than Al Lenhardt. He is such a professional. He is such a gentleman. He is so good. We trust him so much. We are so lucky that he was our Sergeant at Arms during the tragic times the Capitol family has been through the last couple of years. I know we are all extremely proud of him and we will have very fond memories of his service here. I say to General Lenhardt, you are a great man, and we appreciate your service. Mr. President, I rise today to pledge my support for our brave men and women who are on the front lines protecting America as we work to eliminate terrorism. . . . To pledge my support for the United States and all that our country represents: democracy, freedom of speech and religion, independence of thought. . . . And to pledge my support for our leaders and our free and open elections that allow democracy to thrive. I also rise today to urge and insist that throughout the ongoing situation with Iraq, we remember our underlying goal: To protect our country from weapons of mass destruction and terrorist threats and stop those who provide assistance to terrorist operations. In order to fully accomplish these goals, we need the support and assistance of the broadest possible worldwide coalition of our allies. It's not in our Nation's interest to establish arbitrary deadlines to force us to act without the support of others. This is not the time to isolate our country by moving into a unilateral war against Iraq. A war that could result in massive casualties and long term devastation. A war that has the likely potential of increasing terrorist threats against our Nation. There is no question that the United States has the ability and the right to take necessary action to protect our country. But we should not burn bridges--bridges that we will surely need down the road--in our rush to war with Iraq. There is no debate that the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein must come to an end. He has a long history of attacking and murdering his own people, employing chemical and biological weapons, and continually defying the limits set forth by the UN. There have been reported links between Iraq and terrorist activity, although no link has been established between Iraq and the events of September 11. The Iraqi people and the global community deserve to be free from a cruel dictator and the threat to safety that he represents. The credibility of the United Nations and of America is on the line. We must take the time to fully weigh the risks and costs associated with unilateral action against the results we will achieve. The threat Iraq poses is not imminent, at least not so imminent that we can't continue with another week, or another month, of negotiations to garner the support of members of the United Nations Security Council. The clock is ticking, but the alarm has not yet rung. I encourage the administration to continue inspections beyond their self-imposed March 17 deadline. In these final critical minutes, we have the opportunity to lay out hard and fast, mutually agreed upon benchmarks for Hussein to meet--or not meet--to determine his fate. Britain laid out definitive steps yesterday, such as allowing Iraq scientists to be interviewed abroad, destroying banned weapons and providing documentary evidence of any such destruction in the past. While support for their resolution has not been overwhelming, it is important to continue along this path. Indeed, it is critical. We must both provide assistance to Britain, our strongest ally, while employing every resource at our command to garner Security Council support. As the world's superpower, it is not only our responsibility, but it is in our best interest to lead. It's our responsibility to walk with and secure the support of our allies. The decisions we make in the coming days will have global reverberations and I am hopeful we won't have to endure the impacts alone. In the case that unilateral military action is decided upon, the ramifications, lengthy reconstruction process and costs involved must be addressed. There are numerous reports that a war with Iraq will be a relatively short operation. But what follows in a month, in 6 months, in a year? If the United States chooses to go it alone in Iraq and forsakes the support of a majority of our allies, the hurdles and pitfalls will be numerous. And the likelihood of long term success and stability will be diminished. If we are successful in our mission to remove Saddam, a successor will need to be determined. The likelihood of Iraq becoming a democracy in our lifetime is unlikely. Even with the ousting of Saddam, we must be prepared and accepting of a moderate Arab government similar to others in the region. The cost of rebuilding the country will be enormous, both in terms of money and manpower. From ensuring the Iraqi children can obtain clean water to establishing a forum for a free and open government to thrive. Are we willing to take those costs solely upon ourselves? We must also be ready to focus our resources on the stability of the entire Middle East region and Muslim world. We need a comprehensive policy of economic engagement, one that includes expanded trade. We should consider a trade benefits program similar to what we currently do for Africa, the Caribbean, and the Andean countries. In order to achieve long-term stability and reduce the terrorist threat, we will need to engage the entire region. And we will need our allies to assist in this engagement. It's time to face facts. Our country is facing a troubling economy, unemployment, low growth, large national debt. Interest rates can't go much lower. If we continue to disregard the concerns of other Security Council members and move forward with only a small band of countries that support immediate military action, the lion's share of the costs and military burden will fall on America's shoulders. Where will this money come from. How long must our troops be away from their families-- months, years, decades? We must be fully prepared for this scenario before we move forward. We are all in agreement that Saddam Hussein is a bad man and the threat he poses cannot be disregarded. While I unequivocally support removing Hussein from power, knowing that he is a peril to the region and the world, I urge that we move forward with a strong coalition of support. The clock is running down, but there is still time to gather our allies. Our long term interests--on every front--will be best achieved by standing together, united behind our common goal of eliminating terrorism and keeping our countries safe. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the U.S.-Russia Trade Act of 2003. This legislation would grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations to Russia. However--and I want to be very clear about this point--this legislation would also ensure that Congress retains proper oversight of negotiations to bring Russia into the World Trade Organization. Congress typically grants PNTR to a Jackson-Vanik country only when that country is about to join the WTO. This is, for example, exactly what Congress did when China joined the WTO. The Administration and some of my colleagues have suggested that Congress should grant PNTR to Russia prior to their joining the WTO. If we are going to do down this path, we must ensure that there is adequate Congressional oversight. This legislation would ensure Congressional involvement in the following way: after negotiations are completed, Congress would be guaranteed a vote on a resolution to disapprove of Russia's joining the WTO, if such a resolution is introduced. Congress has a key role to play in negotiating an agreement on Russia's entering the WTO. China's WTO accession demonstrates this. The Administration was able to obtain a better deal with China because of Congressional involvement. And there are some real concerns with Russia. The Russian government has announced that it plans to add additional restrictions on imports of U.S. agricultural products, including poultry, pork, and beef. That's unacceptable, and it is behavior that should not be rewarded. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that Congress continues to have an important role in Russia's accession to the WTO. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the U.S.-Russia Trade Act of 2003. This legislation would grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations to Russia. However--and I want to be very clear about this point--this legislation would also ensure that Congress retains proper oversight of negotiations to bring Russia into the World Trade Organization. Congress typically grants PNTR to a Jackson-Vanik country only when that country is about to join the WTO. This is, for example, exactly what Congress did when China joined the WTO. The Administration and some of my colleagues have suggested that Congress should grant PNTR to Russia prior to their joining the WTO. If we are going to do down this path, we must ensure that there is adequate Congressional oversight. This legislation would ensure Congressional involvement in the following way: after negotiations are completed, Congress would be guaranteed a vote on a resolution to disapprove of Russia's joining the WTO, if such a resolution is introduced. Congress has a key role to play in negotiating an agreement on Russia's entering the WTO. China's WTO accession demonstrates this. The Administration was able to obtain a better deal with China because of Congressional involvement. And there are some real concerns with Russia. The Russian government has announced that it plans to add additional restrictions on imports of U.S. agricultural products, including poultry, pork, and beef. That's unacceptable, and it is behavior that should not be rewarded. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that Congress continues to have an important role in Russia's accession to the WTO. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to express a little home State pride. It was described as ``Monte Madness.'' For months, Montanans logged on to the Internet to cast their votes. Billboards hailed his name. Communities rallied around him. Montana's political leaders backed him. And our State beamed with pride on January 1 when the University of Montana's Monte the Grizzly was crowned Capital One National Mascot of the Year. For the first time, mascots across the country competed in an online election for the right to represent their school in national competition. Monte faced stiff competition from mascots like Penn State's Nittany Lion and the University of Florida's Albert the Gator. In the end, Monte won the distinguished title, earning the UM mascot program $10,000 and a lot of national exposure. Monte is known for his athletic prowess, his slick dance moves, and his knack for firing up Griz fans. It's easy to understand why Missoula Mayor Mike Kadas declared February 1 as Monte Day. The highflying mascot is an unsung hero of the University of Montana and a valuable member of the Missoula community. There is no doubt Monte is the hardest working mascot in collegiate athletics. He deserves the national recognition. He is the most spirited, most athletic, hardest hitting, best crowd surfing mascot ever to grace a college campus. I endorsed Monte during his election because he is a mascot for the right reasons--to win ball games and boost Montana athletics. But Monte is not only a Montana treasure on the field, he is committed to giving back to our communities. Monte often attends parades, community events, and gives his time to help others. He donated $1,000 he received from the national exposure to Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Missoula. Monte makes us all very proud to be Montanans. May he wear his crown for all to see and ride his Griz-colored Harley for many years to come.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Grassley in introducing the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2003. The chairman and the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senators Domenici and Bingaman, are also original sponsors of this legislation. This legislation is very similar to the energy tax incentives bill which won overwhelming support on the Senate floor last April and provides a strong starting point for the Senate Finance Committee towards a mark-up of an energy tax bill. The urgency for this legislation at this point in time is particularly critical. Gasoline prices in the U.S. are at record levels. Low inventories, high crude oil prices, recent cold weather and continuing industry concern about a possible war with Iraq have raised gas prices close to the highest price ever recorded. This situation is not expected to improve in the near future. To help alleviate this situation, this bill proposes a balanced package of alternative energy, traditional energy production and energy efficiency incentives. This legislation begins from the premise that we may accomplish energy policy goals by targeting market incentives--in the form of tax deductions and credits--at certain investments. The bill would accomplish this in three ways. First, we create incentives for new production, especially production from important renewable sources. Second, we create incentives for the development of new technology. Third, we create incentives for energy conservation. Through targeted market incentives we hope to encourage the development of alternative sources of production and technologies, thereby boosting our overall energy resources. This will help promote energy independence in the United States, which will contribute to both greater economic growth and national security. At the same time, by encouraging development of sources of renewable energy and energy efficiency, we will also encourage pollution reduction and improve human health and the environment. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important piece of legislation.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Grassley in introducing the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2003. The chairman and the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senators Domenici and Bingaman, are also original sponsors of this legislation. This legislation is very similar to the energy tax incentives bill which won overwhelming support on the Senate floor last April and provides a strong starting point for the Senate Finance Committee towards a mark-up of an energy tax bill. The urgency for this legislation at this point in time is particularly critical. Gasoline prices in the U.S. are at record levels. Low inventories, high crude oil prices, recent cold weather and continuing industry concern about a possible war with Iraq have raised gas prices close to the highest price ever recorded. This situation is not expected to improve in the near future. To help alleviate this situation, this bill proposes a balanced package of alternative energy, traditional energy production and energy efficiency incentives. This legislation begins from the premise that we may accomplish energy policy goals by targeting market incentives--in the form of tax deductions and credits--at certain investments. The bill would accomplish this in three ways. First, we create incentives for new production, especially production from important renewable sources. Second, we create incentives for the development of new technology. Third, we create incentives for energy conservation. Through targeted market incentives we hope to encourage the development of alternative sources of production and technologies, thereby boosting our overall energy resources. This will help promote energy independence in the United States, which will contribute to both greater economic growth and national security. At the same time, by encouraging development of sources of renewable energy and energy efficiency, we will also encourage pollution reduction and improve human health and the environment. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important piece of legislation.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Carroll College Saints football team and to congratulate them on their NAIA National Championship. As you can see, Montana has much to be proud of. Carroll College is a 4-year college located in Helena, MT, and was ranked as the fourth best western regional comprehensive college by U.S. News and World Report. In a game that became part of Montana sports legend, the Carroll Saints crushed their opponent, the two-time defending national champion Georgetown Tigers 28-7. The Saints pounded the Tigers in Tennessee and the echoes reached living rooms throughout Montana. We love football in Montana and the Saints gave us a team to be proud to cheer for and follow. Although the game was magical, magic played no part in the Saints' success. Teamwork, amazing leadership from Coach Mike Van Diest, and hard work, in the weight room, on the field, and in the classroom, led this group of honorable young men through a solid season and an incredible string of playoff games. Montana's college football teams recruit heavily from the state and many Montanan seniors led this legendary team. Darold Debolt from Great Falls, Casey Fitzsimmons from Chestor, Nick Garreffa from Billings, Chris Jones from Helena, Luke Lagomasino from Lincoln, Shane Larson from Miles City, Tyler Maxwell from Helena, Cory Perzinski from Billings, Nick Porrini from Helena, and Heath Wall from Belt, all played their part in creating the unity and teamwork that this team displayed throughout the season. The National Champion Saints' provided inspiration to all who followed them.