Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute to explain the next vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this vote is about jobs, energy, and paying our Nation's bills. There may be times when delay does not have a significant adverse impact. Today is not one of those days. The bill before us is a good bill. It extends tax cuts that expired last December. Companies across America are deciding whether to renew research contracts. Energy companies are deciding whether to buy and build wind turbines. These decisions support jobs. This bill encourages the search for new and clean energy sources. Harnessing power from ocean waves. Capturing carbon emissions. This bill also extends expiring individual provisions, including the teacher expense deduction and the tuition deduction. And the bill pays for itself with provisions that are not tax increases. With gasoline topping $4 per gallon, the American people do not want us to delay. Is the bill perfect? No. Will the Senate change it? Yes. Let's get on with making those changes. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to begin debate on this bill.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, last Friday a cloture motion was filed on H.R. 6049, the Renewable Energy Job Creation Act of 2008. This bill contains a robust energy package, with about $17 billion in incentives for alternative energy, for efficiency, and for clean coal. This package is important for our environment, for energy security, and to facilitate the transition to a carbon-controlled economy. It extends expiring individual provisions. These include the teacher expense deduction and the qualified tuition deduction. The bill also extends expiring business provisions. These include the research and development tax credit and the active finance expensing provision. These business provisions help keep America competitive in the global economy. These business provisions help maintain and create jobs. If these individual and business provisions are not extended, millions of families and businesses would have a huge tax increase. This is all paid for with two revenue raisers that no one has a problem with, revenue raisers that are sound tax policy. Some might argue we should not increase taxes to pay for tax cuts, but these revenue raisers are not tax increases. The first provision is an extension of the effective date of the worldwide allocation of interest, delaying application of that provision. This section of the code is scheduled to take effect for tax years beginning after December 31, 2008. Many of the companies that will benefit from this provision have told me they would rather have business extenders, including R&D, active financing, and CFC look through, in exchange for a delayed application of the worldwide allocation of interest. These companies realize that in order to get extenders done now, they, along with the Congress, must pay for these provisions. These companies have made a choice. I believe it is a sound choice. The second provision is offshore deferred compensation. This provision prevents hedge fund managers from deferring income. This is not an increase in tax on hedge fund managers; rather, it is a change in the timing of when income tax will be applied. This is a timing issue, not a tax increase, and the proposal is sound tax policy. Some argue we should not pay to extend current tax benefits. This is a new one. When the other side was in the majority, several bills passed extending provisions, and they were paid for. So this week the Senate is faced with a choice, a choice that, in my opinion, is relatively easy. We need to decide whether we will develop new jobs and new medications or we can continue to allow hedge fund managers to defer without limitation their compensation for investing other people's money. I believe the choice is easy. We must pass this package of expiring provisions. I also believe the substitute I will offer will include fixing the AMT, taxes American taxpayers would otherwise have to pay--a so-called AMT patch. That prevents Americans from having to increase their tax liability in a way which I think would not be fair. As I said earlier, the extenders package will be paid for. The AMT patch will not be paid for. Why, some might ask. That is basically because I think it is important to recognize the reality that at the end of day, it will not be paid for, so I, therefore, believe it is important to include the AMT patch in something that is going to be fixed. It is not going to be paid for at the end; whereas, other provisions will be. That is the reason for including both in this bill. The extenders paid for, the AMT patch not paid for. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have had the privilege of calling Mr. John ``Harp'' Cote of Butte, MT, my friend for nearly 40 years. In 1973 when I was running for my first congressional seat, not a whole lot of folks knew me from Adam and the only people I was sure would vote for me were my parents. But everywhere I went I heard the same thing: ``Go see Harp.'' So I went. Harp took his time sizing me up during that first meeting, and I remember vividly the moment when he said those magic words, ``I'm with you.'' I know his support made all the difference. I owe my first political break to Harp Cote, and I don't know if anything I've accomplished since then would have happened if he hadn't been in my corner from the start. Harp is a pillar in Montana politics and a great American. He's a model citizen and a model father and grandfather. He and his wife, Esther raised 8 children and have 14 grandchildren. From his many successful business ventures to his leadership roles in just about every charitable organization in town--Butte, and indeed Montana, is a better place because of Harp Cote. Mark Twain once said ``I have found out that there ain't no surer way to find out whether you like people or hate them than to travel with them.'' Well, a couple of years ago, I lead a delegation of Montanans, including Harp, to China and India to see what we could do to create more good-paying jobs and open doors for Montana businesses. After 10 days I can tell you, there is no one I like more than Harp. His familiar smile and easy personality made the trip a great success. And I'm proud of the doors we opened while we were there. In April, I asked Harp to join me in Washington, DC, to hear Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern address a Joint Meeting of Congress. Each Member of Congress was allowed to bring one guest, and I invited Harp because of his unwavering dedication to Montana. As a Butte native and proud Irish American, Harp's attendance has allowed him to further the Mining city's deep seeded Irish connections and heritage. Like most folks in Butte, Harp has Irish blood in his veins, but he is a Montanan through and through. He is dedicated, hard working and one heck of a sportsman. His optimism, resilience and pure grit define Montanans and embody the western spirit. I am lucky to have him by my side as we work to do what is right for Montana, making sure Big Sky country remains the Last Best Place to live, work and raise a family. In 2006, Harp was on hand to welcome Irish President Mary McAleese to Butte. McAleese was the first Irish leader to visit the Mining city since 1919. During the visit, McAleese told a crowd: ``You can be assured that Butte matters to us as much as Ireland matters to Butte.'' I would like to echo President McAleese's sentiment. Harp Cote can be assured that he means as much to Butte, and to Montana, as Montana and Butte mean to him. As for myself, I know when it's all said and done and I look back on my career and my friends, one thing will be certain--one of the greatest honors of my life is the privilege of calling Harp Cote my friend.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, today, the Senate is addressing the most compelling environmental issue of our time--global warming. President Teddy Roosevelt once said: I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use our natural resources, but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob by wasteful use, the generations that come after us. We all have a basic moral duty: a duty to leave this Earth to our children and our grandchildren in as good a shape or better shape than we found it. We should not rob future generations of a healthy climate and all the benefits that come from it. What will history say about us if we rob future generations of the chance to fish in cold water trout streams or see glaciers in Glacier National Park? By reasserting America's moral leadership and enacting a cap-and- trade program, we can leave a different legacy. We can protect our outdoor heritage, make our economy more competitive, and create more good-paying jobs. In Montana, we are already transitioning to a new green economy. We have increased our wind-generating capacity more than seventyfold in the last 2 years. The potential for this clean energy is huge. We can replicate this success with solar, clean coal technology, with carbon capture and sequestration, and other clean forms of energy. We must begin the process of developing the next generation of energy technologies at home. A cap-and-trade program will spur cleaner technologies and create good-paying jobs. We already know that a cap-and-trade system can work. It is a market- based solution that harnesses the power of America's ingenuity and entrepreneurship. In the year 1990, I chaired the conference committee that completed the Clean Air Act amendments designed to address acid rain. At the time, there were a lot of gloom-and-doom predictions about the costs that the Clean Air Act amendments would impose on the economy. Certain industry groups claimed that the Clean Air Act amendments would cost industry more than $5 billion every year. The actual cost to industry was less than one-third of that. And the public benefits of cleaner air have amounted to more than $78 billion a year. A cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases will be much more complicated, clearly. But I am confident that by using a market-based solution, we can stop global warming as well. We have a moral imperative to act. We have no choice. But we must also work to get the policy right. We have no choice there either. This means designing a cap-and-trade system that stops global warming. But it also means doing it in a way that enhances our economic competitiveness, creates good-paying green jobs, and avoids harm to working families. Setting the cap determines whether we meet our environmental goals. What we do with the money the cap-and-trade program raises will determine whether we enhance our American competitiveness and help working families. By establishing a cap-and-trade system, we are creating a market for greenhouse gas emissions. Under the cap-and-trade system, emitting greenhouse gases will come at a price. Allowances will govern the right to emit greenhouse gases. The bill before us gives away some of the allowances but auctions others in an auction system. The bill auctions fewer allowances in the earlier years and more in the later years of the program, through the year 2050. The auctioning of these allowances will generate receipts. According to the Congressional Budget Office, enacting this substitute will generate an additional $902 billion in receipts over the next 10 years--close to $1 trillion. The bill we are considering allocates the money generated from the auction through a variety of trust funds. There are 15 of them in all. They are directed toward different needs anticipated from dealing with global warming. For example, the bill sets aside funding for such things as wildlife adaptation, creation of a new worker training program, and energy technology. All of these are worthy causes. But are they the best way to use the receipts in order to increase our competitiveness and help working families? Should we auction all of the allowances, more of the allowances, or fewer? Rather than spending the receipts through the various trust funds, should we return more of the money to the people in tax cuts? This bill also safeguards American economic competitiveness by requiring importers to buy carbon allowances for products imported from countries that have not made commitments to reduce greenhouse gases. This requirement can serve as an effective incentive for other countries, particularly the rapidly developing economies in China, India, and Brazil to join us in the fight against global warming. Of course, our trading partners will watch closely any proposal that imposes an assessment on imports. It is important we adopt such measures in a manner that respects international trade rules. The proposal before us has been carefully crafted to take these rules into account. As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I supported the Lieberman-Warner bill in both the subcommittee and full committee. I believed it was very important to move forward on global warming. As chairman of the Finance Committee, I have additional responsibilities. Those include directing the revenues generated by the Federal Government, overseeing U.S. trade policy, and helping those displaced by trade to retool and retrain. The bill before us today involves these and many other matters. This is a complex and challenging issue involving many committees within the Congress. We in the Senate have finally woken up to the moral imperative of addressing global warming. Now we must acknowledge the imperative to get the policy right. I applaud Senator Lieberman, Senator Warner, and Senator Boxer for bringing this issue before the Senate so we can begin to debate and improve the policy. I want to continue to work with my colleagues to get it right, as chairman of the Finance Committee, as a member of the EPW Committee, and as a Montanan and a concerned American. We owe it to our children to act and to get it right. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, an Iraq veteran named Travis Williams told his story at a field hearing in Great Falls, Montana last summer. After graduating from Capitol High School in Helena in 2002, Travis quickly joined the Marine Corps. Travis was deployed to Iraq in 2005. He served in Al Anbar province. Like thousands of other American men and women in uniform, Travis served nobly and with honor under the most difficult of circumstances. He experienced the horrors of combat. He lost numerous friends. And he saw unspeakable violence. Travis testified that after months of combat, his emotions seemed to dull or shutdown. As he later learned, he was experiencing a normal reaction to a highly abnormal situation. His reaction was a defense mechanism that allowed him to continue to operate in a combat zone. His mind was finding a way to keep going. Thousands of marines, soldiers, airmen and seamen have experienced this phenomenon. Travis testified that when he arrived home it seemed ``surreal.'' He felt more out of place in his own home than he did in Iraq. Travis isolated himself from his friends. He was frequently drunk and angry. Looking back, he understands that he was on what he called the ``path to destruction.'' One day, Travis received a phone call from Deb McBee. Deb is a veteran's service officer from the Military Order of the Purple Heart. Deb had heard about Travis' experiences in combat. She recommended that he visit the VA clinic to seek help. Travis took her advice. The VA referred Travis to a veteran's liaison for the Western Montana Mental Health Clinic. Travis connected immediately with his mental health counselor. The counselor was also a veteran who understood the nightmare of combat and the loneliness of coming home. Over time, the counselor helped Travis to get back on track. Before long, Travis was enrolled in a pre-med program and had overcome many of the feelings of anger and loss he had felt before. I begin with Travis' story because it offers hope. But it offers hope amid a very dark picture facing our veterans. A recent study by the RAND Corporation revealed that American veterans are facing a crisis of epic proportions. RAND estimates that around 300,000 service members suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder--also known as PTSD--or major depression. And 320,000 individuals reported experiencing probable traumatic brain injury during deployment. The RAND study found that only 53 percent of service members with post-traumatic stress disorder or depression have seen a doctor or mental health provider in the past year. Of those who had a mental disorder and sought care, about half received only ``minimally adequate'' treatment. Tragically, on any single day, on average, 18 veterans commit suicide. More than one out of five of those vets were patients undergoing treatment by the VA. Think of it: Today, 18 veterans are liable to commit suicide. The VA has responded to this crisis with numerous initiatives that offer hope to thousands of veterans. This year, the VA will spend more than $3.5 billion for mental health services. Some of these funds will be invested in a new mental health inpatient ward in Helena, Montana. Over the last several years, the VA has opened up hundreds of new rural health clinics. Today, there are more than 700 of these clinics providing health care to our Nation's veterans. Montana has recently received two new rural health clinics in Lewistown and Cut Bank. The VA is making great strides. But we need to do more. Thousands of veterans still remain out of reach. The VA has undertaken an aggressive campaign to make mental health care services available to veterans living in rural areas. But thousands of Americans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan live hundreds of miles away from the health care that they need. The Veteran's Affairs Office of Policy Analysis and Forecasting counts 118,685 registered highly-rural veterans in America. Of these, only 39,158 live within 2 hours of a VA medical center. Thousands of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan often have to choose between a day-long trip to the VA or no care at all. In my home state of Montana 32,404 rural veterans are enrolled in the VA healthcare system. Over 10,000 of those veterans must drive more than an hour and a half to reach a VA hospital. And thousands of those veterans must drive over two hours both ways. In times of crisis, two hours is much too far to drive. Research conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs shows that veterans residing in rural areas are in poorer health than their urban counterparts. Nationwide, one out of every five veterans enrolled in VA health care lives in a rural area. Providing quality health care in a rural setting has proved to be a daunting challenge. Limited numbers of doctors and long highways make inadequate access to care all too common. But let me return to Travis Williams' story. The key lesson of Travis' story is that getting the right care to veterans is all about teamwork. It wasn't just the VA that saved Travis. It wasn't just professional mental health counselors alone. It wasn't just veterans' service organizations. Travis' willpower alone was not sufficient to get him through the hard times. It was all of those things. All of those factors working together helped Travis to get away from a life of anger and despair, and back to a life full of meaning and purpose. Teamwork is what the Relief for Rural Veterans Act is all about. The bill would enable small rural hospitals, mental health service providers, and other rural providers to work together to respond to the needs of veterans in crisis. States could apply for funding to increase their capacity to deliver mental health services by using state-of-the- art technology such as tele-health and tele-psychiatry. More specifically, my bill will give the Secretary of Health and Human Services authority to award grants under the Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program. The Medicare Flex Program has a successful 10-year history of strengthening the rural healthcare infrastructure. Under this new authority, States can apply for grants to increase the capacity of rural providers to provide mental health services to veterans and other rural residents. The bill would authorize an additional $100 million for this new authority for 2 years. The Medicare Flex Program is a good way to improve health care services in rural America. It has provided grants to States to develop State rural health care plans. It supports conversion of eligible small rural hospital facilities to critical access status. It supports rural emergency medical services. And it fosters rural health care network development. It makes sense to expand this program to include mental health services needed by veterans in crisis. Research conducted by the University of Maine found that small rural hospitals are playing a major role in providing emergency health care services to veterans. They are filling a critical gap in caring for veterans in crisis. But the Federal Government has not thus far provided funds to help rural hospitals to perform this task. The grants authorized in my bill could support crisis intervention services and other health care services needed by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. My bill will focus upon those veterans who live far from VA facilities. It could provide relief for veterans who have to drive hours to receive emergency mental health care. An additional benefit of these grants is that all rural residents, regardless of whether they are veterans or not, would be able to take advantage of the increased capacity of their small rural hospitals to deliver improved healthcare services. Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and the National Alliance on Mental Health Care have endorsed this bill. The RAND study I mentioned earlier concluded that we need a major national effort to improve the capacity of the mental health system to care for veterans. The report stated that the effort must include the military, veterans, and civilian healthcare systems. This bill is one answer to that call. This bill is a way to approach the problems facing our veterans from a new perspective. The philosophy behind the bill is that all agencies that can lend a hand to our veterans should do so. The challenges facing our Nation's veterans are too large for the VA to handle on its own. Researchers estimate that PTSD and depression among returning service members will cost the Nation as much as $6.2 billion in the 2 years following deployment. That's an amount that includes both direct medical care and costs for lost productivity and suicide. Investing in more high-quality treatment could save close to $2 billion within 2 years by substantially reducing those indirect costs. Last month, Chairman Bob Filner said this about the crisis facing our veterans: This is not a crisis that only concerns numbers. This is a matter of life and death for the veterans for whom we are responsible. I urge the VA to continue its efforts to extend its reach into rural areas. I applaud the nation's thousands of volunteers who serve our Nations' veterans. And I offer this legislation as one way to begin a new approach to help those who have sacrificed so much in the name of duty, honor, and country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, an Iraq veteran named Travis Williams told his story at a field hearing in Great Falls, Montana last summer. After graduating from Capitol High School in Helena in 2002, Travis quickly joined the Marine Corps. Travis was deployed to Iraq in 2005. He served in Al Anbar province. Like thousands of other American men and women in uniform, Travis served nobly and with honor under the most difficult of circumstances. He experienced the horrors of combat. He lost numerous friends. And he saw unspeakable violence. Travis testified that after months of combat, his emotions seemed to dull or shutdown. As he later learned, he was experiencing a normal reaction to a highly abnormal situation. His reaction was a defense mechanism that allowed him to continue to operate in a combat zone. His mind was finding a way to keep going. Thousands of marines, soldiers, airmen and seamen have experienced this phenomenon. Travis testified that when he arrived home it seemed ``surreal.'' He felt more out of place in his own home than he did in Iraq. Travis isolated himself from his friends. He was frequently drunk and angry. Looking back, he understands that he was on what he called the ``path to destruction.'' One day, Travis received a phone call from Deb McBee. Deb is a veteran's service officer from the Military Order of the Purple Heart. Deb had heard about Travis' experiences in combat. She recommended that he visit the VA clinic to seek help. Travis took her advice. The VA referred Travis to a veteran's liaison for the Western Montana Mental Health Clinic. Travis connected immediately with his mental health counselor. The counselor was also a veteran who understood the nightmare of combat and the loneliness of coming home. Over time, the counselor helped Travis to get back on track. Before long, Travis was enrolled in a pre-med program and had overcome many of the feelings of anger and loss he had felt before. I begin with Travis' story because it offers hope. But it offers hope amid a very dark picture facing our veterans. A recent study by the RAND Corporation revealed that American veterans are facing a crisis of epic proportions. RAND estimates that around 300,000 service members suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder--also known as PTSD--or major depression. And 320,000 individuals reported experiencing probable traumatic brain injury during deployment. The RAND study found that only 53 percent of service members with post-traumatic stress disorder or depression have seen a doctor or mental health provider in the past year. Of those who had a mental disorder and sought care, about half received only ``minimally adequate'' treatment. Tragically, on any single day, on average, 18 veterans commit suicide. More than one out of five of those vets were patients undergoing treatment by the VA. Think of it: Today, 18 veterans are liable to commit suicide. The VA has responded to this crisis with numerous initiatives that offer hope to thousands of veterans. This year, the VA will spend more than $3.5 billion for mental health services. Some of these funds will be invested in a new mental health inpatient ward in Helena, Montana. Over the last several years, the VA has opened up hundreds of new rural health clinics. Today, there are more than 700 of these clinics providing health care to our Nation's veterans. Montana has recently received two new rural health clinics in Lewistown and Cut Bank. The VA is making great strides. But we need to do more. Thousands of veterans still remain out of reach. The VA has undertaken an aggressive campaign to make mental health care services available to veterans living in rural areas. But thousands of Americans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan live hundreds of miles away from the health care that they need. The Veteran's Affairs Office of Policy Analysis and Forecasting counts 118,685 registered highly-rural veterans in America. Of these, only 39,158 live within 2 hours of a VA medical center. Thousands of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan often have to choose between a day-long trip to the VA or no care at all. In my home state of Montana 32,404 rural veterans are enrolled in the VA healthcare system. Over 10,000 of those veterans must drive more than an hour and a half to reach a VA hospital. And thousands of those veterans must drive over two hours both ways. In times of crisis, two hours is much too far to drive. Research conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs shows that veterans residing in rural areas are in poorer health than their urban counterparts. Nationwide, one out of every five veterans enrolled in VA health care lives in a rural area. Providing quality health care in a rural setting has proved to be a daunting challenge. Limited numbers of doctors and long highways make inadequate access to care all too common. But let me return to Travis Williams' story. The key lesson of Travis' story is that getting the right care to veterans is all about teamwork. It wasn't just the VA that saved Travis. It wasn't just professional mental health counselors alone. It wasn't just veterans' service organizations. Travis' willpower alone was not sufficient to get him through the hard times. It was all of those things. All of those factors working together helped Travis to get away from a life of anger and despair, and back to a life full of meaning and purpose. Teamwork is what the Relief for Rural Veterans Act is all about. The bill would enable small rural hospitals, mental health service providers, and other rural providers to work together to respond to the needs of veterans in crisis. States could apply for funding to increase their capacity to deliver mental health services by using state-of-the- art technology such as tele-health and tele-psychiatry. More specifically, my bill will give the Secretary of Health and Human Services authority to award grants under the Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program. The Medicare Flex Program has a successful 10-year history of strengthening the rural healthcare infrastructure. Under this new authority, States can apply for grants to increase the capacity of rural providers to provide mental health services to veterans and other rural residents. The bill would authorize an additional $100 million for this new authority for 2 years. The Medicare Flex Program is a good way to improve health care services in rural America. It has provided grants to States to develop State rural health care plans. It supports conversion of eligible small rural hospital facilities to critical access status. It supports rural emergency medical services. And it fosters rural health care network development. It makes sense to expand this program to include mental health services needed by veterans in crisis. Research conducted by the University of Maine found that small rural hospitals are playing a major role in providing emergency health care services to veterans. They are filling a critical gap in caring for veterans in crisis. But the Federal Government has not thus far provided funds to help rural hospitals to perform this task. The grants authorized in my bill could support crisis intervention services and other health care services needed by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. My bill will focus upon those veterans who live far from VA facilities. It could provide relief for veterans who have to drive hours to receive emergency mental health care. An additional benefit of these grants is that all rural residents, regardless of whether they are veterans or not, would be able to take advantage of the increased capacity of their small rural hospitals to deliver improved healthcare services. Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and the National Alliance on Mental Health Care have endorsed this bill. The RAND study I mentioned earlier concluded that we need a major national effort to improve the capacity of the mental health system to care for veterans. The report stated that the effort must include the military, veterans, and civilian healthcare systems. This bill is one answer to that call. This bill is a way to approach the problems facing our veterans from a new perspective. The philosophy behind the bill is that all agencies that can lend a hand to our veterans should do so. The challenges facing our Nation's veterans are too large for the VA to handle on its own. Researchers estimate that PTSD and depression among returning service members will cost the Nation as much as $6.2 billion in the 2 years following deployment. That's an amount that includes both direct medical care and costs for lost productivity and suicide. Investing in more high-quality treatment could save close to $2 billion within 2 years by substantially reducing those indirect costs. Last month, Chairman Bob Filner said this about the crisis facing our veterans: This is not a crisis that only concerns numbers. This is a matter of life and death for the veterans for whom we are responsible. I urge the VA to continue its efforts to extend its reach into rural areas. I applaud the nation's thousands of volunteers who serve our Nations' veterans. And I offer this legislation as one way to begin a new approach to help those who have sacrificed so much in the name of duty, honor, and country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Matt Smith, an intern on the staff of the Finance Committee, and Bruce Fergusson, a fellow in my Senate office, be allowed on the Senate floor for the duration of the debate on the climate change bill.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the amendment I am filing to S. 3036, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008, is aimed at preserving the legislative process. With an issue as complex and wide-ranging as climate change, there are several committees within the Senate that not only have an interest but a responsibility to deal with some aspects of the cap-and-trade system we develop. This amendment will assure that the appropriate committees of the Congress will have the opportunity to consider those aspects of a cap-and-trade proposal within their jurisdiction. Mr. President, the amendment I am filing to S. 3036, the Lieberman- Warner Climate Security Act of 2008, is designed to use the revenues generated from the auctioning of the greenhouse gas allowances for tax relief. A cap-and-trade system proposed in this legislation will generate billions of dollars. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Boxer substitute will generate $902 billion in revenues during the initial 10 years of the program. As chairman of the Finance Committee, I have a responsibility to direct Federal revenues to the purposes that the committee, initially, and the Senate, ultimately, consider in the best interest of the country.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on Memorial Day in 1884, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said: It is now the moment when by common consent we pause to become conscious of our national life and to rejoice in it, to recall what our country has done for each of us, and to ask ourselves what we can do for our country in return. I am pleased that today, on the eve of the Memorial Day weekend, the Senate has been able to recall what our service men and women have done for each of us. I am pleased that we can do something for them in return. And I am pleased that we have been able to pass the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008. Nearly 1.5 million American service men and women have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, or both. Nearly 30,000 troops have been wounded in action there. It is time that Congress showed its gratitude to these brave men and women. They have devoted their lives to the pursuit of American freedom. Today, we are doing just that. We have passed a bill that offers tax relief to these men and women who serve our country so valiantly. During a trip to Iraq last year, I saw the amazing job that our troops are doing. I met many Montanans from small towns such as Roundup and Townsend. I saw firsthand what a heavy burden our troops bear for all of us. They face hardships and danger. But they keep at it every day. This bill makes permanent the special tax rules that make sense for our military. Many of these rules expired at the end of 2007. For example, most troops doing the heavy lifting in combat situations are lower ranking soldiers in the lower income brackets. Some of them are earning combat pay at levels that would qualify for the earned income tax credit. But under current law, combat pay does not count toward computing the EITC. Congress fixed that temporarily. But the provision that fixed the problem expired at the end of 2007. The EITC is a beneficial tax provision for working Americans. It makes no sense to deny it to our troops. Today, we have made combat duty income count for EITC purposes, and we have made that change a permanent part of the Tax Code. This military tax package also eliminates obstacles in the current tax laws that create problems for some veterans and service members. For example, family members of fallen soldiers killed in the line of duty receive a death gratuity benefit of $100,000. But the tax law does not allow the survivors to put this benefit into a Roth IRA. This bill will guarantee that the family members of fallen soldiers may take advantage of these tax-favored accounts. Another problem for our disabled veterans is the time limit for filing to get a tax refund. Most VA disability claims filed by veterans are quickly resolved. But many disability awards are delayed because of lost paperwork or the appeals of rejected claims. Once a disabled vet finally gets a favorable award, the disability award is tax-free. In many cases, however, these disabled veterans paid taxes on the payments in the past. The veterans cannot get the taxes paid back because the law bars them from filing a claim for a tax refund that goes back far enough. We take care of this problem by giving disabled veterans an extra year to claim their tax refunds. This bill is paid for by requiring that companies that do business with the Federal Government pay their employment taxes. The bill makes sure that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent companies that have contracts with the Federal Government pay employment taxes for their employees. Another offset in the bill is a provision that makes certain that individuals who relinquish their American citizenship or long-term residency pay their fair share of Federal taxes. This provision ensures that these folks pay the same tax for appreciation of assets, such as stocks or bonds, as they would pay if they sold them as U.S. citizens or residents. We owe the men and women fighting in our armed forces an enormous debt of gratitude. They leave their families and put their lives on the line to fight for our freedoms. And so today, the Senate pauses to recall what our service men and women have done for each of us. Today, the Senate pauses to ask ourselves what we can do for them in return. And today, the Senate pauses to say thank you.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6081, which was received from the House.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this budget resolution conference report allows Congress to take action on many of America's priorities. This conference report starts by providing for many priorities through the revenue side of the budget. This agreement includes monies to pay for extending expired and expiring revenue provisions. These provisions include the teacher expense deduction, which helps teachers who buy school supplies. These provisions include school construction bonds, to help repair our country's deteriorating school infrastructure. And these provisions include help to businesses to stay competitive. In particular, the budget assumes extending the research and development credit, which gives businesses an incentive to increase research. This will keep America as a top innovator in science and technology. This conference agreement on the budget resolution also includes monies to provide for education tax reform. So far this year, the Finance Committee has held two tax reform hearings. One of the major themes of the testimony has been simplification. Witnesses almost always cite education tax incentives as an example of needless complexity. This conference report would allow us to help make education more accessible and affordable by making the education incentives easier to use. The agreement also includes my amendment that was successfully added to the budget resolution on the Senate floor. My amendment took the surpluses in the budget resolution and gave them back to the hard-working American families who earned them. My amendment provided for some important priorities so that the business of America's families can be taken care of. First, my amendment provided for permanence of the 10-percent tax bracket. That is an across-the-board tax cut for every taxpayer. Second, my amendment provided for making permanent the changes to the child tax credit. That is a $1,000 tax credit per child. This tax credit recognizes that a family's ability to pay taxes decreases as the family size increases. Unless we act, the child tax credit will fall to $500 per child in 2010. Third, my amendment provided for making permanent marriage penalty relief. This relief makes sure that a married couple filing a joint return has the same deductions and tax brackets as they would if they filed separately as individuals. Fourth, my amendment provided for making permanent the increased dependent care credit and changes to the adoption credit. Fifth, my amendment provided for tax provisions to help military families. And I am pleased to say that these are very close to being adopted by the Congress. This shows that Congress values the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform make for us every day. Nearly 1\1/2\ million American service men and women have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, or both. Nearly 30,000 troops have been wounded in action. Congress is about to show our support for our service men and women by making the Tax Code a little more troop-friendly. We will extend the special tax rules that make sense for our military that expire in 2007 and 2008. We can eliminate roadblocks in the current tax laws that present difficulties to veterans and servicemembers. One of these roadblocks is how the Tax Code treats survivors of our fallen heroes. The families of soldiers killed in the line of duty receive a death gratuity benefit of $100,000. The Tax Code restricts the survivors from putting this benefit into a Roth IRA. We are about to make sure that the family members of fallen soldiers can take advantage of these tax-favored accounts. Another roadblock in the tax laws impedes our disabled veterans. I am talking about the time limit for filing for a tax refund. Most VA disability claims filed by veterans are quickly resolved. But many disability awards are delayed due to lost paperwork or the appeals of rejected claims. Once a disabled vet finally gets a favorable award, the good news is that the disability award is tax-free. The bad news is that many of these disabled veterans get ambushed by a statute that bars them from filing a tax refund claim. We are about to give disabled veterans an extra year to claim their tax refunds. Most troops doing the heavy lifting in combat situations are the lower ranking, lower income soldiers. Their income needs to count towards computing the earned-income tax credit, or EITC. Under current law, however, income earned by a soldier in a combat zone is exempt from income tax. This actually hurts low-income military personnel under the EITC. The EITC combat-pay exception allows combat zone pay to count as earned income for purposes of determining the credit. That way, more soldiers qualify for the EITC. But this EITC combat-pay exception expires at the end of 2007. We are about to make this provision permanent. The budget resolution conference report also provides for some certainty to American families on the estate tax. Lowering the estate tax to 2009 levels is the least that we can do as estate tax reform. I am pleased that the conference report recommends appropriations of $240 million more than the President requested for the administrative costs for the Social Security Administration for fiscal year 2009. These funds are badly needed to reduce the enormous waiting times that many applicants for Social Security disability benefits must wait before their claims are finally approved. Funds are also badly needed to improve the low levels of service to the public in SSA's local field offices. I am pleased to see that the resolution captures Democratic health care priorities and provides economic relief for families. It provides funding for maternal and child health; nutrition assistance for women, infants, and children or WIC; and the Social Services block grant. And the resolution accommodates legislation to modernize the unemployment insurance program. The resolution retains the reserve funds passed in the Senate to reauthorize CHIP and expand coverage to eligible but unenrolled kids. This is a personal priority for me. The budget also works to protect seniors from unscrupulous marketing of Medicare drug plans, thereby laying the groundwork for a strong Medicare bill currently under negotiation. The resolution also provides for important improvements to Medicare, such as promoting the use of Health IT. And it would set up a ``comparative effectiveness'' reserve fund to help us learn what treatments work best and most efficiently to keep Americans healthy. I am working with Chairman Conrad to introduce legislation on this topic this year. All of these investments take steps toward addressing the underlying growth in health care costs. The resolution is also tough on government waste, fraud, and abuse and includes important program integrity initiatives to crack down on wasteful or fraudulent spending in the Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Unemployment Insurance Programs. This budget resolution also accounts for important international trade priorities under the Finance Committee's jurisdiction. The resolution establishes a reserve fund for trade adjustment assistance and a separate reserve fund for other trade initiatives. These reserve funds will allow the Finance Committee to realize legislation to reauthorize trade adjustment assistance, as well as pursue legislation to extend trade preferences, reauthorize customs functions, and implement bilateral trade agreements. Mr. President, I am thus pleased that this budget resolution conference report allows Congress to take action on these important priorities. I look forward to working with my colleagues to implement the improvements contemplated in the resolution. And I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff of the Finance Committee be allowed on the Senate floor for the duration of the debate on the farm bill: Ayesha Khanna, Bridget Mallon, Scott Guenther, Bruce Fergusson, Kelsey Hamilton, Libby Cohn, Nathan Empsall, Ezana Teferra, Jeremiah Langston, and Thea Murray.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. First, I deeply thank my good friend from Iowa, Mr. Harkin. It has been a wonderful experience working the conference on the farm bill where everybody worked together--both sides of the aisle--and, frankly, both bodies. Basically, there were eight members of the conference, led by Senator Harkin and Senator Chambliss, who were also invaluable. All of the core members of the conference could go on and on about how great everybody was to work with. I have not experienced anything like this before. Mr. President, I am glad the Senate debated the farm bill. I am proud we will pass a strong farm bill. This farm bill is very important to my home State of Montana and for farmers and ranchers across America. But too few Americans realize how important America's farmers and ranchers are to the economy and the security of this country. As we finish debate on the farm bill I want to take the opportunity to discuss how important a robust American agriculture sector is. I also want to address some of the criticisms aimed at America's farmers and ranchers. Over the last few years, major newspapers and Washington special interest groups have been busy demeaning our Nation's farmers and ranchers. The articles come with some pejorative titles, such as ``High Plains Grifters,'' ``Farmers at the Trough,'' and ``Hungry Kids, Greedy Farmers.'' These attacks are disappointing to many of us who have worked hard over the years to enact successful, supportive agriculture policy. But there is a wide gulf between the claims being made in these articles and the reality of what is going on in farm and ranch country. The articles waver between portraying farmers and ranchers in completely opposite ways. Either the corporate businessman leaching off the Government dole or or the hayseed farmer unable to compete in the market economy without a handout. Either the corporate businessman leaching off the Government dole or the hayseed farmer unable to compete in the market economy without a handout. These portrayals are disappointing to me and disheartening to rural America. And they are false. I know that in this high-tech age it is tempting to downplay the importance of those who put food on our table and clothes on our back. But the better part of history would teach us to avoid the temptation. The portrayals also inaccurately depict the agriculture economy while entirely missing the underlying problems that plague farmers and ranchers. One common attack on U.S. farm policy is that it is no longer for the family farm and ranch, but rather has become corporate welfare. But even the most basic of research quickly uncovers that today nearly all producers in America remain family farms and ranches not corporations and conglomerates. In fact, only 2.2 percent of farms are nonfamily farms. Negative articles frequently refer to ``protectionist'' policies intended to shield farmers and ranchers from competition and to raise consumer prices. One group recently stated that we should simply ignore all the subsidies and trade barriers of other countries. Unilaterally disarm our own farmers and ranchers. And then sit back and enjoy the benefits of cheaper imported food. This makes zero sense. American consumers today spend a lower percentage of their disposable income on food than consumers anywhere else around the world. In fact, American families are the only families in the world who spend less than 10 percent of their disposable income on food. Agriculture is also important to our economy, as became apparent earlier this decade when farmers and ranchers helped get the country through a manufacturing crisis. Our farmers and ranchers managed this even as the average foreign tariff rate on agriculture products was and remains about 62 percent, while the United States average tariff is only around 12 percent. President John F. Kennedy once said ``the Farmer is the only man in our economy who buys everything at retail, sells everything he sells at wholesale, and pays the freight both ways.'' That is true. Farmers and ranchers are--and in my memory always have been--in the middle of a never-ending cost squeeze. For too many years we have asked our farmers and ranchers to do more and more and always with less. So while all the negative news articles focus on the symptoms, they never seem to get around to identifying and discussing the real problems that plague our farmers and ranchers: skyrocketing costs and stagnant returns. The next generation of farmers and ranchers, growing up all across rural America, has a more accurate view of what farming and ranching life is really about than do urban newspapers and think tanks. They see long days in the fields, unpredictability caused by droughts, hail storms, hurricanes and floods and a low payoff at the end of the day. Too frequently, they decide it is not worth the effort to come back to the family farm. That is one reason I was proud to champion the dependable, reliable disaster program that is included in the farm bill. It is wrong when our farmers and ranchers are forced to wait up to 3 years for a disaster payment. We can do better for our farmers, and we can do better for our taxpayers. Farmers deserve a program and provides dependable, equitable relief when disaster strikes. Taxpayers deserve a program that requires farmers to manage their risk through crop insurance. We have done both. As we finish debate on this farm bill, I am proud to say that my goal has been, and will always be, to increase the net income of America's farmers and ranchers. I want a strong agricultural economy in this country. I want a strong, homegrown source of safe, affordable, and abundant food and fiber. I believe this farm bill will strengthen our farm economy. I want to mention a couple provisions in the farm bill that will increase producer's bottom line as well as strengthen rural America's Main Streets. One of the biggest reforms in this farm bill is the country-of-origin labeling compromise. The conference report simplifies COOL and makes it workable for both our ranchers and our packers. These changes are a major step forward and will help as we undergo the transition this fall to mandatory COOL. I call this COOL reform. Another major reform we have fought for since the 1990s is allowing interstate shipment of State-inspected meat. There is no reason our smaller packers should not be able to sell their meat out of State. Now, nearly 20 years later. This farm bill establishes a program that allows smaller, State-inspected packers to market their high quality meat nationwide. This is a huge win for ranchers, packers and rural America. Whether it's a dependable disaster program, COOL reform, interstate shipment, a $10 billion bump to our nutrition programs, or a $4 billion increase to our working-land conservation programs, there is a lot to be proud of in this farm bill. While the urban media creates visions of agriculture producers lining up for Government payments, I am more worried about our next generation of producers lining up to leave those family farms and ranches. It's so hard and such a tough life. The great irony in the debate that swirls around U.S. farm policy today is that it is getting so much criticism from so many different quarters and yet it remains one of the truly great success stories in the world. As with anything else, there is always room for improvement. And I believe we have made improvements in this farm bill. But, every now and again, especially in an age of such cynicism, I know my Montana farmers and ranchers would like to open their papers, turn on their televisions or radios, and just hear a simple thank you. We really appreciate what you do to keep us clothed and fed like nobody else in the world has ever been before. Mr. President, Emerson wrote: What is a farm but a mute gospel? The chaff and the wheat, weeds and plants, blight, rain, insects, sun--it is a sacred emblem from the first furrow of spring to the last stack which the snow of winter overtakes in the fields. The farm bill conference report before us today is a tribute to that sacred emblem, that mute gospel, the farm. This bill will help to address some of the challenges facing the farmer and rural America. The conference report provides permanent disaster assistance for farmers and ranchers. And the conference report also includes farm tax reforms that fund farm tax relief as well as agricultural and trade measures. The tax package in the conference report will help farmers to preserve land and to protect endangered species. It will provide tax relief for farmers and ranchers, and it will help America find homegrown energy independence. The trade-related measures in the conference report accomplish a number of vital purposes for this agriculture legislation. Trade provisions help to fund the farm bill's provisions. And trade provisions level the trade playing field for softwood lumber producers. The new program in this conference report for relief from agricultural disasters is a notable achievement. Currently, Congress addresses agricultural disasters through ad hoc bills. Ad hoc disaster bills are not dependable. They are never timely. And they are often unfair. After a disaster strikes, farmers and ranchers often have to wait years to receive disaster assistance. We need a permanent disaster relief program for our farmers and ranchers. We need a program that is dependable, timely, and equitable. The new program in this conference agreement will provide that. Many Americans--including many leaders in Congress--say that America's farm policy is ripe for reform. The farm bill conference report includes important farm tax reforms. The conference report will prevent the use of farm losses as a tax shelter by limiting the amount of farming losses that a taxpayer may use on nonagricultural business income. It will ensure that farmers know their tax obligations by requiring the Commodity Credit Corporation to always provide the IRS and the farmer with information returns when the farmer repays a CCC market assistance loan. It will allow farmers to pay additional self-employment taxes to qualify for Social Security. Taken together with a slight decrease in the ethanol tax credit and other offsets, these reforms fully offset the tax and trade package in this conference report. American farmers and ranchers want to be responsible stewards of their land. But the financial pressure to sell to developers can be extreme. The farm bill conference report includes tax incentives to encourage and enable private landowners to promote conservation on their land. The conference report provides conservation tax relief for retired and disabled farmers. It would exempt CRP payments to these individuals from self-employment taxes. And it would keep these payments from reducing their Social Security or disability payments. Nearly two-thirds of endangered and threatened species are found on private lands. So the conference report establishes a tax deduction for the cost of landowners' actions to implement recovery plans under the Endangered Species Act. More than 10 million acres of conservation easements are held by land trusts nationwide, many of them donated. The enhanced charitable tax deduction for conservation easements has proven to be a valuable incentive for making these kinds of gifts. So the conference report extends the enhanced deduction for conservation easements. The conference report also includes important provisions to protect American timber jobs and American lands. This conference report will help the American timber industry to remain globally competitive. And it will help to keep timber land from being sold for development. America's farming families sacrifice a lot to feed this country. The farm bill conference report includes a number of tax relief provisions to help them to start farming, help them to stay financially afloat, and help to make the Tax Code fairer for those who make a living working the land. The conference report improves ``Aggie Bonds.'' These are tax-exempt bonds that provide low-interest loans for first-time farmers and ranchers. Agricultural chemicals and pesticides purchased for legitimate uses are increasingly vulnerable to theft because of the drug trade and national security threats. The conference report provides support for agricultural businesses by providing a credit for the costs of protecting these agricultural chemicals and pesticides. Some State water rules keep farmers and ranchers from selling their land when they need to or want to. The conference report will allow the tax-free exchange of stock that represents a holding of water rights. This will allow this stock to be treated like real property under section 1031 of the Tax Code. As summer approaches, American families are paying higher prices than ever for gasoline. Our country needs to break its dependence on foreign oil and fossil-based fuels. And America's agricultural sector can help, with homegrown energy solutions. Cellulosic biofuels can be produced from agricultural waste, woodchips, switchgrass, and other nonfood feedstocks such as brewer's spent grains. With an abundant and diverse source of feedstocks available, cellulosic biofuels hold tremendous promise as a homegrown alternative to fossil-based fuels. But because cellulosic biofuels are very expensive to make, government assistance can help to spur these fuels to commercial viability. The farm bill conference report includes a new, temporary production tax credit for cellulosic biofuels. The credit will be worth up to $1.01 per gallon. And it will be available through December 31, 2012. The farm bill conference report also contains a number of trade- related measures. Enforcement of the softwood lumber agreements is one of these provisions. Timber is an important agricultural product. And America both produces and imports significant amounts of timber-related products, including softwood lumber. As the downturn in the housing market continues to hurt American softwood lumber producers, America's trading partners must be held to fair trade standards for softwood lumber. The conference report includes an importer declaration program that will require American importers of softwood lumber to ensure that their imports are consistent with America's international agreements. The softwood lumber provision will also force the administration to take affirmative steps to enforce American softwood trade agreements. And, Mr. President, this is a good conference report. We should pass it, and send it to the President. Let us pay tribute to that sacred emblem, that mute gospel, the American farm. Let us address the challenges facing the farmer and rural America. And let us pass this much-needed conference report. I have never been more proud of what all you do in helping to provide food and fiber for America.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wish to give special recognition to the music department of Bridger High School for putting together an award-winning music education program. By demonstrating outstanding commitment to music education, Bridger High School won this year's GRAMMY' Signature School Award. This distinction is a national honor and a cause for celebration for the town of Bridger in my home State of Montana. Music plays an integral part in our daily lives. It helps to define who we are as individuals and as a nation. Through music we celebrate, we laugh, we grieve and we heal. An old song, like an old friend, helps to recall feelings and memories lost in time. The power of music is undeniable. Music education, therefore, is a sound investment. It teaches discipline and provides an avenue to express deep and powerful emotions. It enhances a student's performance in other subject areas. It makes a fundamental difference in the quality of life. It makes an even bigger difference in the lives of students from economically underserved school districts. Bridger is a small town with a population less than 1,000. Under the watchful guidance of their music director Michel Sticka and principal John Ballard, the 28 music students from Bridger High strived to distinguish themselves and their school. They have succeeded. And so, they deserve our respect and admiration. Being selected as a GRAMMY' Signature School is no small task. Bridger High School competed against 20,000 other public schools across the Nation to capture the distinction. In addition, the students at Bridger High went on to win the GRAMMY' Signature Schools Enterprise Award. The award recognizes three schools across the country for their efforts towards achieving music excellence. This national honor comes with a grant of $5,000 designed to benefit Bridger High's music program. Because of a strong music education, for the students of Bridger High, the greatest reward comes from the lifelong benefit of being able to lead richer and fuller lives. I couldn't be more proud of the students and faculty members at Bridger High School. They have gone above and beyond to put Bridger, MT, on the map, setting the standard for all Montana schools. I join my fellow Montanans in a chorus of praise for these 28 bright students on their extraordinary achievements: Benton D. Asbury, Katryna N. Asbury, Samantha J. Bobby, Jonathan E. Bostwick, Devon B. Caballero, Jenny M. Cooke, Jessica Denney, Karissa J. DeRudder, Sommer D. Dykstra, Rebekah Edelman, Hayden D. Forsythe, Hannah Goetz, Jacey K. Griswold, Elliott G. McCarthy, Forrest C. McCarthy, Kimberly M. McClurg, Heidi R. Mudd, Wendi N. Mudd, Tara R. Murray, Lenore K. Pierson, Cole D. Schwend, Edward Stevenson, Andrea D. Sticka, Bailee M. Vaugh, Ryan J. Witt, Kyla M. Young, Tyler D. Young, Brittany N. Zentner.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on the surface, this is a complicated matter. Pension law is complicated. It gets into whether a company has a defined contribution plan, a defined benefit plan, issues such as: What is the assumed interest rate that applies to the pension plan? It is backwards: the higher the rate, frankly, the less of an obligation by the company to contribute to the plan. I think on the surface we would think it would be a little bit of the opposite. It gets into length of years, the time within which companies are required to contribute to their plan to fully fund their plan. It is very complicated on the surface. It is very simple. This question we are dealing with here is very simple when you get down to what is going on around here. So I ask my colleagues to pay a lot of attention to the statistics and all the complexities at the surface, but pay more attention to what is going on here. After all the charts and all the statistics and all the stuff, what is going on here? I think Senators and their staffs will find, when they do that, what is going on here is the question of--there are two questions here--do we want to keep the playing field level among the airlines? Airlines are going through some difficult times today, clearly. Fuel costs are high. There are other problems facing the airlines. But do we want the playing field to be level? The second question: Do we want to help provide adequate protection to the pension plans, to retirees? Those are the two basic questions. So how did we get here? Back several years ago, after 9/11, and when the country was facing some economic difficulties, when pension plans were going belly up because companies, regrettably, were not adequately funding their pension plans--especially the defined benefit plans; to some degree, the defined contributions, but especially defined benefit plans--what did we do? We in the Congress exercised our responsibility to do something about all that. What did we do? In 2006, we passed a pension bill. What did that provide? Well, we were kind of caught in the middle--Congress was--especially with respect to airlines because after 9/11, airlines were not doing well at all because people were not flying as much, and they were under significant stress and strain, and, at the same time, pension plans were not in good shape generally--not just airline pension plans but other companies' pension plans. So we refined the law in 2006 to give much more protection to retirees in their pension plans because companies basically were not doing what they should have been doing back up to that time. We had another little problem on the side, and that was airlines because they were under a lot more financial stress than other companies in the United States generally. So what did we do? We said: Well, we want to help the airlines. We do not want to hurt the airlines. We also want to protect the pension plans. So we raised the pension plan requirements that all companies must face. But we gave a little break to the airlines. We gave a longer period of time in which they had to fully fund their plans. We said: For those that are in bankruptcy--there were a couple back then--you get a long time. You get 17 years. We will also give you a big, high interest rate. ``Big, high interest rate'' means it is computed at a greater rate of return on your assets so you do not have to contribute as much to the plan. We also gave a big break to the airlines that were not in bankruptcy. We gave them 10 years. The standard rule was 6 years for all other companies. We said: OK, you are in real stress. You get 17 years. If you are in some stress--not as much--you get 10 years. Those are companies that were not in as much stress. Those are companies that did not freeze their plans, whereas, those that had 17 years did freeze their plans. We said: OK, after 10 years and 17 years, the playing field will be back to level again. A couple airlines with plans that were not frozen, that had the 10- year requirement--remember, the standard rule is 6 years, but they got the 10 years, not the 17 years--said: Wait a minute, you are helping those who are in bankruptcy too much at our expense. They said they were doing the right thing. So we said: OK--that is what this bill does--OK, we will give you virtually the same interest rate as the others. What does that mean? It means you do not have to contribute to your pension plan. You do not have to. So we think that levels the playing field because now all companies will have to contribute to their plans, at least prospectively. We are saying to the other companies--the 10-year companies--you do not have to contribute to your plan up to today's date, up to 2008. You are free. You are off the hook. So these arguments you hear on the floor that this underlying bill is putting financial stress on certain companies are not true because those companies will not have any obligation to contribute more to their pension plan for past liabilities, but they will currently. We think that is a fair compromise. This is not a perfect world. But under our committee bill, it is clear it is basically a level playing field because all companies now will have the same computed interest rate to calculate what their assets are to indicate the degree to which they have to contribute to the plans. Now the Durbin amendment says: No. No. We want to give a bigger break to the companies that do not freeze their plans that are not in bankruptcy. The effect of the Durbin amendment will be that those companies will not have to contribute to their pension plans. They have not, and they will not have to for a couple years in the future because the Durbin amendment gives a higher interest rate, which, in effect, means they will not have to contribute. Well, if I am a retiree, and I work for one of these airlines, I would say: Wait a minute. I want to make sure I am protected too. So, as I said, there are two questions here. Is the playing field level? And, are we going to protect the pension plans? The effect of the committee bill is to level things off. It is not perfect, but it is almost perfect; where the effect of the Durbin amendment is to make it much less perfect and basically help a couple airlines that, as a consequence, will not have to contribute to their pension plans for past liabilities, and will not have to in the future either, because of the interest rate they provide for in their amendment, and other airlines will have to contribute into their plans. I say the right answer here--airlines are squabbling among themselves over all this--the right answer is to keep it fair for everybody, have the same law essentially apply for everybody. The committee bill does that. I might say also, we want to protect our pension plans because that was the whole purpose of the 2006 pension bill. The effect of the Durbin amendment is to say: No, these plans are not going to be protected as much under the Durbin amendment. That is not the right thing to do. There are some who say: Gee, this is going to cause bankruptcies in the poor financial condition the country is in right now. That is a bogus argument. We are saying: Keep the playing field level. That is all we are saying in this committee bill. It is not going to affect the bottom line. Our committee bill will not affect the bottom line of these airlines because, basically, it is a cashflow issue because cash is transferrable between the plan and the company. So it is not going to affect the bottom line of these airlines at all--the committee bill--nor will the Durbin amendment affect the bottom line. That is a bogus argument. But the effect of the Durbin amendment is to give less protection to retirees--that is indisputable--less protection to retirees. And do not forget, under the 2006 pension bill, we were trying to give more protection to retirees. Also, the second effect of the Durbin amendment is to unlevel the playing field. It favors certain airlines at the expense of others. I think the best policy is to protect pensioners and to protect retirees, and also to keep the playing field level. That is why I think it is better to not adopt the Durbin amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, John F. Kennedy once said: As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them. I rise today to express my gratitude to the Montanans who have served our country in uniform. Montana is home to over 100,000 veterans. Many others gave the ultimate sacrifice in service of our Nation. Twenty- four Montanans have given their lives in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. We owe these brave warriors a debt of gratitude that can never be fully repaid, and it is an honor to call myself one of their countrymen. These veterans embody everything that is great about this Nation. They are tough. They are smart. They work hard. No matter the task, they get the job done. But the highest appreciation deserves more than just words. In honor of all Montanans who have served this great Nation, I am launching the Defenders of Freedom Fellowship. The Defenders of Freedom Fellowship offers professional experience in the U.S. Senate for Montana veterans. Each fellow will work in my personal office on veterans issues. The fellow will research issues and correspond with constituents, attend congressional hearings, and work on new legislation. The fellow will gain a rare insight into how the American Government works. The fellow will serve our Nation's veterans and all the people of Montana. The fellowship has three goals. First, the fellowship aims to help involve more veterans in public service. A veteran's patriotism and love of service is a valuable asset to any public office. Second, the fellowship will take advantage of all the experience a veteran has to offer. Many of these young men and women have experience well beyond their years. We have much to learn from what they have seen and done. We will gain a new perspective on tough problems we are working to solve. Last, the fellowship is a humble way to say thank you to Montana's veterans, humble because it is an invitation for a veteran to come to Washington to work. However, this fellowship can also offer a gift. Some fellows will find a love for public service that will last a lifetime. This passion for public service has propelled many to greatness. It is this spirit that has inspired our Nation's greatest leaders. I am excited about this--very excited. I am very excited about this fellowship and the opportunity I will have to work with some of Montana's veterans. To all Montana veterans and their families, I offer my gratitude for your service and for your sacrifice. To the future Defenders of Freedom fellows, I look forward to working with you soon. I thank you in advance for your efforts. I am confident you will find your service very rewarding. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commiitee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 30, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., in closed session to mark up the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2009.