Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I consume. This is a Patients' Bill of Rights bill. This is not a tax bill. This is not a Department of Defense bill. This is not a agriculture bill. This is not a foreign policy bill. This is a Patients' Bill of Rights bill. The amendment offered by my friend from Idaho is not a Patients' Bill of Rights amendment; it is a tax amendment. We will have ample time this year to take up tax legislation. We will take up tax legislation at some time, even though we had a huge tax bill already this year. When I say ``we,'' I mean the Finance Committee. That is because the budget resolution provides $28 billion for health insurance benefits for Americans who are now uninsured. I guess the committee will report out legislation this year which will include expansion of some benefits, perhaps under CHIP, but perhaps also some tax provisions. There are many Senators who have good ideas to encourage Americans to have more health insurance--credits, deductions, and so forth. MSAs is just one way. MSAs, I might say, are actually, under the law, reserved for the most wealthy Americans. It is a particular kind of savings account which enjoys very lucrative, very beneficial status with respect to our tax laws; that is, contributions are not deductible, inside buildup is not taxed, withdrawals for medical purposes are not taxed, and only withdrawals for nonmedical purposes are, but not in the case when a person reaches the age 65. Essentially, they can be converted by wealthier people into a retirement account beyond a savings account. They are just one way of, perhaps, providing health insurance for Americans. The main point being this is not a tax bill. The Finance Committee will take up health insurance legislation this year as provided under the budget resolution. At the time we consider MSAs, we will consider other appropriate ways to encourage Americans to have more health insurance. That is the appropriate time for this body to consider health insurance legislation. That is when the Finance Committee can consider all the various ideas and report out a bill to the Senate which, in a more orderly way, because it is a tax bill which is dealing with tax matters, particularly health insurance, will help more Americans. I also say to my good friend from Idaho, as referred to by my friend from Arizona, it is now 2 o'clock Friday afternoon. We have been on this Patients' Bill of Rights bill a long time. It is very good legislation. We are going to finally pass a Patients' Bill of Rights, after I don't know how many years, tonight. That is my guess. We will not pass it tonight--who knows when we will ever get to finally pass it--if we start going down this road of adopting sense-of- the-Senate resolutions. This is the first sense of the Senate. We have not had one before. This particular resolution says this bill should include expansion of medical savings accounts. If we are not going to add savings accounts here, we are, in effect, deciding we should not add medical savings accounts, a tax bill, on this bill. I respectfully suggest to all my colleagues, the proper vote here is to vote no because it is, in effect, a tax provision. It is a sense of the Senate. We have not done that before. We are about ready to conclude passage of this bill and we will take up health insurance, tax legislation, at an appropriate time later. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield back my time and I make a constitutional point of order against Senator Smith's motion on the grounds that the motion would affect revenues on a bill that is not a House-originated revenue bill. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask, is all time yielded back?

Mr. BAUCUS. I do not object.

Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object, could the Senator share with the Senate the contents of the modification; otherwise, I will be constrained to object.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from California makes a very good point. Clearly, the President could have included a permanent extension of the R&D tax credit in his proposed tax legislation. The Senate was then controlled by the Republican Party, and it certainly could have put in the R&D tax credit, and it probably would have survived conference if they pushed it. I say to my friend from California, this is only speculation, but that was not provided for because the current extension, the current provision is in place at least until December 31, 2004. So there is time for the R&D tax credit to take effect, and at a later date we can make it permanent.

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield to my good friend from California.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I am going to move to table.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I will make a couple of points. If you read it, it makes clear that this is a sense-of-the-Senate tax provision. It says sense of the Senate, and the Patients' Bill of Rights should remove the restrictions on the private sector medical savings account demonstration program to make medical savings accounts available to more Americans. Medical savings accounts is a tax provision. This says remove restrictions to make it more available; to, in effect, change the tax law to make it more available. It is clearly a sense-of-the-Senate tax bill. Second, it has been asserted that it is for the working poor. I have a distribution chart furnished by the President which indicates what income groups of Americans utilize medical savings accounts. By far, the greatest income level to use medical savings accounts is that with adjusted gross income--the total gross is a lot more--of between $100,000 and $200,000. Those people are hardly the working poor. For those in the lowest category--those with adjusted gross incomes of under $5,000--you get 111 returns. For those in the earlier category that I mentioned--those in the $100,000 to $200,000 adjusted gross income--you get 9,400 returns. It is not for the working poor. That is not the main point. The main point is that this is a sense-of-the-senate tax provision. We should not go down this road. We will at the appropriate time later this year in the Finance Committee work on a measure to protect and provide more health insurance for those who do not have health insurance and report that legislation at the appropriate time to the floor. I yield the remainder of my time. If the Senator from Idaho will yield the remainder of his time, I will make a motion with respect to this amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor amendment No. 834 with Senator Snowe and my other colleagues. It addresses an issue important to all of us here--protecting employers from undue liability. This amendment clarifies any confusion about who is responsible for medical decision-making. Under this amendment, employers who generally do not make medical decisions anyway--will be able to name a designated decision maker. If they contract with an insurance company, that company is automatically given the status of designated decision maker. The employer doesn't have to take any further action. Once designated, this entity will have the authority to make medical decisions. And with this authority, the designated decision maker--not the employer--will have the responsibility for those decisions if they result in harm to the patient. I believe this amendment serves as an important compromise. It enables employers to feel more comfortable offering their employees health benefits. And that's certainly something we want to encourage. But it also protects patients, and ensures that they receive all the protections provided under the Patients' Bill of Rights.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I commend my good friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, and particularly applaud his continued effort to work in cooperation and in a bipartisan and frank manner to get results. It is an approach he has taken when he was at the helm of the Finance Committee and an approach he knows works. I commend him for it. I take this opportunity to address one of the amendments presently pending, the amendment offered by my colleague from Texas, Senator Gramm. While I will not vote for this amendment, I believe it is critical that we protect employers from unwarranted liability claims. But the Gramm amendment I believe goes too far. It protects employers from liability even when they are responsible for making medical decisions that result in injury or death. Let me be clear. I do not believe employers should be held liable for medical decisions made by others, nor do I believe they should be exempt from responsibility if they are making medical decisions themselves. This issue is very important to businesses in my State. It is very important to the people in my State. I must say it is very important to me. For that reason, I am working with my colleagues on a compromise. I have recently spoken with Senator Edwards. We are working together on a bipartisan compromise that will shield employers from liability when they are not involved in making decisions about medical care. It is a bipartisan compromise that will also protect patients. I believe there is a middle ground. I will be working with my colleagues to find it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Objection.

Mr. BAUCUS. I will withdraw the objection if the Senator from Arizona wishes to speak.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I oppose the pending amendment for several reasons. One, the bill before us is a Patients' Bill of Rights; it is not a tax bill. We have already passed a tax bill. It was a big one, $1.35 trillion, just a short while ago. There could be an opportunity later to examine tax issues, but this is not the time to do it nor do I submit this is the place to do it. I oppose this amendment on jurisdictional grounds because the Finance Committee is the committee responsible for tax issues, and we will take up similar legislation at a later date, but this is not the time or the place for a tax provision. Also, Senator Grassley, the ranking member of the committee, agrees-- I have discussed this with him--this is not the time and place to include this legislation. The place is in the Finance Committee. That is the committee of jurisdiction over tax legislation. Senator Grassley, as do I, has a strong interest in addressing health care- related tax cuts, but rather in the context of the Finance Committee. He and I strongly urge the Senate to reject this amendment. This is not the time and place to offer tax amendments. When all time expires, I will make a point of order against the pending amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. I make a constitutional point of order against the Hutchinson amendment on the grounds that the amendment would affect revenues on a bill that is not a House-originated revenue bill. I urge Senators to vote aye on the point of order.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues--Senator Jeffords, Senator Levin and others--in co-sponsoring the Brownfields Site Redevelopment Assistance Act and the Brownfields Economic Development Act. These two Acts are important complements to S. 350, the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001 that the Senate passed unanimously earlier this year. S. 350 encourages the remediation of brownfield sites by reducing financial and legal barriers to clean-up. The Brownfields Site Redevelopment Assistance Act and the Brownfields Economic Development Act expand the abilities of the Economic Development Administration and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to help local communities physically develop and restore brownfield sites to productive use. Taken together, these three bills make up a complete brownfields redevelopment package. The two Acts introduced today will provide critical economic and technical assistance to communities during all stages of the brownfields redevelopment process--from an initial site assessment to putting the finishing touches on a new apartment building or city park. These bills have enormous potential to enhance and revitalize communities and their economies, to turn neglected wastelands into productive developments, and to create more parks and open spaces. This in turn will create great opportunities for new jobs and economic development. This is particularly true in my State of Montana where we've been working hard to jump start our economy. Montana's industrial past has left the State with its share of brownfield sites--wood treatment facilities, railroad yards, sawmills. Hopefully, this legislation will provide communities with the tools they need to put these sites to productive uses. The Brownfields Site Redevelopment Assistance Act of 2001 will provide the Economic Development Administration with authority and funding for grants to States, local communities, Indian tribes and non- profit organizations for brownfield redevelopment projects. The Brownfields Economic Development Act of 2001 will make HUD Brownfields Economic Development Initiative grants available to local governments and Indian tribes for community development projects. The bill will also provide a 30 percent set-aside for small communities and tribes, a provision that is very important to a rural State like Montana. The National Association of Development Organizations reports that Federal agencies are not reaching rural areas through existing brownfields programs. Rural communities and tribes in Montana and elsewhere need financial and technical assistance to include brownfields in economic development strategies. Getting brownfield sites cleaned-up makes good sense in Montana and throughout the nation. That, again, is good for the environment, good for communities, good for our economy, and good for the country. I wholeheartedly support this legislation, and I hope both bills will enjoy swift passage through the Senate.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues--Senator Jeffords, Senator Levin and others--in co-sponsoring the Brownfields Site Redevelopment Assistance Act and the Brownfields Economic Development Act. These two Acts are important complements to S. 350, the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001 that the Senate passed unanimously earlier this year. S. 350 encourages the remediation of brownfield sites by reducing financial and legal barriers to clean-up. The Brownfields Site Redevelopment Assistance Act and the Brownfields Economic Development Act expand the abilities of the Economic Development Administration and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to help local communities physically develop and restore brownfield sites to productive use. Taken together, these three bills make up a complete brownfields redevelopment package. The two Acts introduced today will provide critical economic and technical assistance to communities during all stages of the brownfields redevelopment process--from an initial site assessment to putting the finishing touches on a new apartment building or city park. These bills have enormous potential to enhance and revitalize communities and their economies, to turn neglected wastelands into productive developments, and to create more parks and open spaces. This in turn will create great opportunities for new jobs and economic development. This is particularly true in my State of Montana where we've been working hard to jump start our economy. Montana's industrial past has left the State with its share of brownfield sites--wood treatment facilities, railroad yards, sawmills. Hopefully, this legislation will provide communities with the tools they need to put these sites to productive uses. The Brownfields Site Redevelopment Assistance Act of 2001 will provide the Economic Development Administration with authority and funding for grants to States, local communities, Indian tribes and non- profit organizations for brownfield redevelopment projects. The Brownfields Economic Development Act of 2001 will make HUD Brownfields Economic Development Initiative grants available to local governments and Indian tribes for community development projects. The bill will also provide a 30 percent set-aside for small communities and tribes, a provision that is very important to a rural State like Montana. The National Association of Development Organizations reports that Federal agencies are not reaching rural areas through existing brownfields programs. Rural communities and tribes in Montana and elsewhere need financial and technical assistance to include brownfields in economic development strategies. Getting brownfield sites cleaned-up makes good sense in Montana and throughout the nation. That, again, is good for the environment, good for communities, good for our economy, and good for the country. I wholeheartedly support this legislation, and I hope both bills will enjoy swift passage through the Senate.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to shift the direction of the education debate for a moment. For the past few weeks, we have been debating now best to engage the Federal Government in ways to improve our K-12 schools. There has been a lot of constructive debate on a number of important topics. An amendment that I planned to offer, S.A. 387, would have addressed another important topic relative to our schools: recruitment and retention of teachers in rural areas. I have spoken with Senator Kennedy and agreed to withdraw my amendment, but I want to speak for a moment about its importance. My amendment would have increased the scope of current loan forgiveness provisions for teachers, including an expansion of eligibility to those teachers who teach in districts identified within the Rural Education Achievement Program. I offered this amendment because there is a significant need in our rural schools for assistance in attracting and keeping good teachers. My amendment may have helped that situation. I understand that the issue of rural teacher recruitment and retention is one that needs further investigation, though, and am pleased that Senator Kennedy has agreed to address the needs of rural schools in Senate HELP Committee hearings. We need to better understand rural needs and find effective ways to provide our rural schools, home to roughly 17 percent of students throughout the country, with the resources they need to delivery a quality education.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to share my thoughts on Senator Helms' amendment that would deny Federal education funds to schools that deny access to the Boy Scouts of America. I want to be very clear that my vote against this amendment in no way represents a vote against the Boy Scouts of America. I have always been, and will continue to be, a strong supporter of the Boy Scouts of America. The Boy Scouts provides an opportunity for our children to create and accomplish goals, increasing their sense of self worth and discipline. Boy Scouts learn about the importance of maintaining respect and honor for themselves and others, and Scouts are often excellent role models for their peers. I am firmly convinced that organizations like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts play an important role in the development of well-adjusted and productive children. I voted against this amendment because I felt it provided a Federal solution to a local issue, and I think that is wrong. Under current law, local school board members decide which organizations are permitted to meet in their schools. I want community members and school board members to continue to have that ability. They know best what their children need, and their decisions reflect local values and priorities. I further want to point out that the Boy Scouts already have equal access to our schools under current law. I firmly believe that the Boy Scouts should be allowed in our schools, and I am pleased that the Supreme Court has upheld the right of the Boy Scouts to have equal access to our public schools. Should there be cases where the Boy Scouts are denied access to our schools, I think our judicial system is well positioned to determine whether a school's decision was fairly and equitably reached. I felt that this Supreme Court decision fairly addressed the issue of equal access while keeping control at the local level. I further felt that this decision would give the necessary support to the Boy Scouts of America to meet in our schools without necessitating Congressional intervention. For these reasons, I voted against this amendment. In my mind, a better alternative, in the form of an amendment introduced by Senator Boxer, existed. I supported that amendment, which affirms the right of the Boy Scouts to meet in our schools without imposing a Federal mandate.

Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator, for giving your attention to this issue of great importance to rural schools in my home State of Montana and throughout the country amendment no. 505

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I regret that I was delayed in reaching the Senate floor and missed the vote on Senator Bond's amendment to the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act that would serve to strengthen parental involvement in the education of their child. I feel very strongly that parents should play an active and informed role in the education of their child, and I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Bond, offered an amendment to further encourage active and informed parental involvement. Recent studies have helped us better understand the role that our biological development plays in our ability to learn and understand. These studies reinforce the need for early and consistent parental involvement in their child's social and cognitive development. While I regret being absent during this vote, I am pleased that the Senate overwhelmingly agreed to this amendment. Helping parents better understand their child's developmental stages, and offering more ways for them to be involved in their child's education, will certainly lead to better education programs and more opportunities for our children.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on April 21-23, 2001 more than 1200 students from across the country came to Washington, D.C. to compete in the national finals of the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program.'' I am proud to announce that one of the classes that competed was from Polson High School in Polson, MT. The students that participated are: Curt Bertsch, Luke Bradshaw, Brad Briney, Amy Herak, Jackie Johnson, Ray Kneeland, Mindy Koopmans, Maggie Liebschutz, Tim Mains, Levi Mazurek, Ashley Miedinger, Joey Moholt, Cuinn Morgen, Nolan Mowbray, Toby Nelson, Kevin O'Brien, Kati O'Toole, Becky Owen, Stephen Pitts, Jeri Rafter, Kate Tiskus, Luke Venters, and Jason Wies. I would also like to recognize, their teacher, Bob Hislop. Bob brings students to the national competition almost every year; his efforts have been a major asset to Polson High School and the State of Montana. For the students involved, the national competition was the culmination of months spent studying the Constitution. It lasted three days, and was modeled after a Congressional hearing. Students were the ``witnesses,'' and they made oral presentations before a panel of judges--the ``committee.'' Afterwards, the judges asked questions designed to probe each competitor's knowledge of several different Constitution-related categories. In addition, the Polson High group got an opportunity to meet members of Congress and visit sites of historic and cultural significance in Washington, D.C. The competition may have been the highlight, but for most students the trip itself was an educational and exciting experience. The ``We the People'' program is directed by the Center for Civic Education, and it has been extremely successful. Several studies show that students who participate in We the People are substantially better informed about American Politics than those who do not. They are also more likely to register to vote, be more confident in their rights as citizens, and be more tolerant of other's viewpoints. Let me again congratulate the Polson High group for their hard work. Montana is proud of them.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will yield myself a very short period of time because there is a Senator who very desperately needs to vote quickly and get home. In deference to him, I will speak briefly. The British statesman Benjamin Disraeli said that, ``in politics, a week is a long time.'' The past week or so is a good example. On the tax bill, we have gone from a handshake deal, through a day- long markup in the Finance Committee, through 43 votes on the Senate floor, and then through a brief but difficult conference that, more than once, veered close to a breakdown. It is almost always difficult to reconcile two different bills in conference. That was the case here. The stakes were high, time was short, and some of the differences were profound. But I am delighted to join our chairman, Senator Grassley, in announcing that we have a conference agreement that embodies a solid, balanced, bipartisan compromise. Let me describe the key elements of the compromise. The centerpiece of the Senate bill was the immediate creation of a 10 percent rate, to cover the first $12,000 of taxable income. This benefits low and middle income taxpayers the most. And it provides a boost to the economy. The conference report adopts this provision lock, stock, and barrel. Another key element of the Senate bill was the set of provisions geared to low and middle income families. Here, again, we did well. The conference report expands, and simplifies, the earned income tax credit. And it incorporates the Senate proposal to make the child credit refundable. Putting the 10-percent rate, the EITC, and the child credit provisions together, we have, to my mind, written one of the best tax bills ever for middle income working families. That's an accomplishment we all can be proud of. On top of that, the Senate bill included new incentives for retirement savings and for education, and the conference report includes a large measure of each. Let me step back for a minute, and describe why, to my mind, this bill represents a balanced package. In the first place, everybody who pays income taxes will get a tax cut. The government has a surplus. We can afford to give some of it back. That's good news, not bad. The President deserves credit for making this point. But his proposal fell short, in one critical respect. The President's proposal was aimed primarily at society's winners. People in the top tax brackets. People with large estates. We should not begrudge these people their success. But, at the same time, we should not stop there. In writing a bill of this scope, we have an unique opportunity to reach out. To lend a hand, and give an incentive, to families that are working hard, raising kids, and dreaming dreams. The Senate bill did that. And so does this conference report. As I have explained, we cut taxes for working families. We create new incentives for education, like the new deduction for college tuition. We create new incentives to save for retirement, through IRAs, 401(k)s, and the new low income matching program. These are important provisions that create new opportunities. And there is more. For example, thanks to Senator Landrieu, we expand the tax credit for adoption. Thanks to Senator Kohl, we create a new tax credit to encourage employers to provide child care for their employees. All told, the conference report contains dozens of positive provisions. Does the conference report have flaws? Sure. As the debate has gone on, I have taken heed of the warnings of Senator Conrad, who fears that the tax cut may use up too much of the surplus. I hope he's wrong. But I agree that we must watch the budget closely, and make corrections if necessary. There are other flaws. For example, I don't think we should have cut the top rates so steeply. I don't think we should completely repeal the estate tax. I wish we could have made the R&D tax credit permanent. But, putting all of the provisions together, I believe that this is a good compromise that deserves broad bipartisan support. At this point, let me say a few things about the bill's impact on my state of Montana. From the very beginning, the impact of the tax cut on Montana has been something of a paradox. On one hand, Montanans are rugged individualists. We do not like regulations and we do not like taxes. On the other hand, Montana's economy is hurting. Incomes are low. A tax cut like the one proposed by the President, that was aimed primarily at high-income folks would not help us very much. In fact, under the President's proposal, Montana would have received less of a tax cut, per capita, than any other state in the nation. Fortunately, the conference committee has produced a bill that, for Montana, improves dramatically on the President's proposal. We cut taxes, across the board. But we pay special attention to working families. As a result, the conference report will give Montanans a tax cut that is, on average, 15 percent higher than under the President's proposal. And we will cover almost 70,000 more Montana children, under the child credit, than the President's proposal--70,000. Just as important, the conference report retains key incentives for education, which is at the very heart of our work to generate new jobs for the new economy. And it creates new incentives to help small businesses set money aside for their employees retirement. These incentives will help with the most important task in Montana, economic development. All in all, you might say that this is a tax cut that was made in Montana. Pulling it all together, this bill is good for working families. It is good for education. It is good for the economy. It is good for Montana. This legislation is good for the country, it is good for America. It is much better than the legislation we would otherwise have before us. I worked with Senator Grassley, the chairman of the committee, to produce a Finance Committee bill which has provisions that are much better from a Democrat's perspective than we would otherwise be faced with on the floor. I worked with Chairman Thomas, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and produced a conference report that is much better than what we would otherwise be voting on on the Senate floor from the point of view of most Democrats. This is a much better bill. This conference report is much less backloaded--less backloaded by a third compared with the House-passed bill. It is, in terms of the frontloading/backloading, the same as the Finance Committee-passed bill. It retains the child credit refundability provisions so important to so many people, particularly the children in our country who otherwise do not get benefits. This proposal was championed by Senator Snowe, Senator John Kerry, and many others. We are proud to have that provision in the bill. It also very much helps the distribution of this bill toward middle- and low-income Americans. Every American gets a tax cut from this bill. The most wealthy get a greater tax cut because they pay the most taxes. But I might say middle-income Americans also get a very significant tax cut. In fact, they receive proportionately more than current law. The only exceptions to this proportionality are the estate tax provisions and, of course, many Senators favor those estate tax provisions whether they oppose the rest of the bill or not. All in all, this is a bill which is fair. Its provisions are for the country. In the education section, for example, Senator Torricelli's provision is excellent. Senator Mary Landrieu's adoption tax credit is an excellent provision as well. The pension provisions, which are very important to both sides, are in this bill. There is modest--not much but a modest alternative minimum tax cut provision. We, obviously, have to address that situation, and we will in the future. The conferees worked off the Senate bill, not the House bill. This explains why we have all the provisions in the Senate bill that were not in the House bill. On upper rates, we moved about halfway toward the House, but, frankly, the House moved more than halfway toward the Senate on upper rates. We create a 10-percent bracket retroactive to the first of this year. One final point I would like to make. Some may complain that this bill is more expensive than the $1.35 trillion allowed in the budget resolution. Their complaint is that the bill sunsets at the end of 2010 rather than September 30, 2011. A point of order would lie against this conference report had we not moved the sunset date. As it is before us, all of the tax provisions in this bill terminate in 10 years, which means any estimates of cost over the subsequent 10 years are meaningless. There is no cost from this bill beyond 2011 because of the sunset. The change in the sunset date was necessary because of Senate rules. It also helped us make sure we have the provisions that we care about: education, child tax credit refundability, 10 percent rate; widening the bracket of 15 percent, and others. I see my time is expiring. I urge Senators to remember, perfection should not be the enemy of the good. Nothing is perfect, even this bill, but it is a good bill. I yield to whomever next seeks time.