Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following fellows and interns of the Democratic staff of the Finance Committee be allowed on the Senate Floor for the duration of the debate on the Transportation Reauthorization Bill.

Brian Townsend,

Cuong Huynh,

Richard Litsey,

Jorlie Cruz,

Waylon Mathern,

Emily Meeker,

Rob Grayson.

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the conference report on the budget resolution. This budget moves the country in the wrong direction. This budget resolution would worsen our fiscal situation.

This budget resolution would increase Federal budget deficits rather than decrease them. On its face, this budget resolution would add $168 billion to Federal deficits and almost $1.5 trillion to Federal debt held by the public over the next 5 years. This includes $70 billion in reconciled tax cuts over 5 years that are completely unpaid for, and an additional $36 billion of unreconciled tax cuts over 5 years that are not paid for either. All of these additions to the deficit and debt held by the public are disconcerting on their own.

But that is not the full story. This resolution leaves out enormous budgetary costs in order to make the budget picture look rosier than it is. It provides no money to fix the alternative minimum tax. It assumes levels of nondefense discretionary spending for the next 5 years that are unrealistically way too low. It also leaves out funding that will undoubtedly be needed for our efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terror. Furthermore, the budget resolution includes cuts in spending that are targeted to the wrong policy areas: toward low-income families, vital safety net programs, farmers, and ranchers. If the three omitted items were presented honestly, and the wrongly targeted spending cuts were removed, the resolution would increase deficits and debt held by the public by much larger amounts over the next 5 years than it does on its face. And I would hasten to add that not a dime of the nearly $750 billion for the President's Social Security privatization proposal over the next 10 years is included in this budget resolution. Not to mention the trillions of dollars this proposal would cost in later years.

I am particularly disappointed to see that the conference committee includes a reconciliation instruction to the Finance Committee to cut spending in our jurisdiction. Senator Gregg's budget included $15 billion in Medicaid cuts over 5 years. The successful amendment offered by Senators Smith and Bingaman reduced the Medicaid cut to zero. But now, the cut is back up to $10 billion.

There is widespread agreement that Medicaid should not be subject to arbitrary budget cuts. A majority of the Senate voted for the Smith- Bingaman amendment. An overwhelming majority of the House, 348 Members, voted Tuesday to adopt a motion instructing budget conferees not to cut Medicaid.

Four out of five Americans also believe that cutting Medicaid is a bad idea. The Governors are also united in their opposition to having a budget number drive policy in Medicaid reform. And more than 135 advocacy and provider groups have urged Congress to reject the cuts.

But despite the chorus of opposition to cuts in Medicaid, the budget resolution reinstates $10 billion.

Now, some say that the Medicaid number is less than $10 billion, because cuts can be made from other programs within the Finance Committee's jurisdiction. I fail to see how $10 billion represents a victory.

Cuts to important programs like TANF will affect vital work supports, like child care, for low-income working families who are struggling to make ends meet. And I understand that some on the House side are looking to the EITC for additional cuts. Another important program, and cuts here would essentially mean tax increases for hard-working Americans.

Some claim that the cuts to Medicaid are ``small'' and represent less than 1 percent cut in spending growth over 5 years.

But $10 billion over 5 years probably means that, over 10 years, the cuts range from $25 to $35 billion. That is close to the $39 billion that Congress allocated to coverage for millions of uninsured children during the 10 year lifetime of the Child Health Insurance Program.

And it is impossible to ignore that this $10 billion in cuts represents nearly one-third of the total spending cuts in this budget, putting this burden on our nation's poorest and most vulnerable Americans.

Let's not kid ourselves into thinking that the cuts are minimal or that they won't have an effect.

These cuts would tear the fabric of our Nation's safety net at a time when Medicaid is needed more than ever. They would increase the number of uninsured Americans at a time when we should be working on ways to cover more people not making the problem worse.

When the budget was being debated back in March, I said that it made more sense to establish a bipartisan Medicaid commission like the one recommended in the Smith-Bingaman bill than to have the budget cuts drive our policy discussion on Medicaid. The Smith-Bingaman amendment struck the cuts and recommended a bipartisan commission to study the program and advise Congress on how we can improve and sustain Medicaid well into the future. The majority of the Senate agreed with this approach and we struck the Medicaid cuts from the budget.

Now we are voting on a final budget that appears to promise both cuts and a Medicaid commission. While I do not believe this is the right approach, to the extent that we are considering a Medicaid commission, it must be credible to have any value in this debate.

To be credible, any commission should be independent, bipartisan, and comprised of experts who truly understand Medicaid and its role in our health care system. The scope of the commission's work should be broadly focused on maintaining Medicaid's viability over the long term and should not be limited just to considering cuts to the program. And the commission must be given a reasonable time to consider these weighty matters and should not be rushed. The commission must be above the fray of partisan politics, but it must be responsive to the voices of the many stakeholders affected by this critical program. A commission that does not meet this standard will not have our Nation's trust, and its findings will not carry weight in the halls of Congress.

I want to commend my colleague Senator Smith for his efforts to ensure the Medicaid commission is fair. I agree with Senator Smith's view that having an independent research institution, such as the Institute of Medicine, oversee the commission would be a good approach to ensure a fair and balanced outcome. But any commission must look at the whole picture with Medicaid--a short-term focus on cuts is not the right approach.

Reforming Medicaid is an important debate to have. But the debate should be driven by policy, not an arbitrary budget target. Medicaid deserves its own policy debate, just as we did with Medicare.

These cuts are short-sighted.

I predict that Medicare, including changes to the new Medicare law, will be on the table if this budget passes.

We should not be penny wise and pound foolish when it comes to Medicaid--America's most vulnerable citizens deserve better from us.

And we should not be adding to our already large Federal deficits and debt.

That is why I will oppose this budget resolution. And I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, the theme of this year's World Intellectual Property Day, which we commemorate today, is ``Think, Imagine, Create.''

Think, imagine, create, these simple words are at the center of what makes America great and what continues to drive our progress. American thought produced our Constitution and our system of government. American imagination put a person on the moon. And American creativity has made U.S. culture the envy of the world.

It is astounding how important intellectual property has become in our everyday life. It is even more astounding how much we take human creativity and intellectual property for granted. Just think about it for a moment and imagine what a world would be like without intellectual property rights.

Without copyrights, who would want to write the books we read, produce the movies we watch, or compose the music that fills our ears?

Without trademarks, who would want to invest the enormous time, energy, and resources required to develop a brand name synonymous with quality and reliability?

And without patents, who would have the incentive to innovate and produce inventions that change our world and save our lives?

Intellectual property rights are not just some abstract legal concept the sole province of lawyers and judges. They are an essential motor of our economy.

Look at the copyright industry. These are the folks who produce newspapers, books, movies, computer software, and radio/TV broadcasting. This industry alone accounts for 12 percent of our gross domestic product. That's $1.25 trillion.

If these numbers don't impress, then let's look at the impact the copyright industries have on U.S. jobs. They alone employ roughly 11.5 million workers. That is nearly 8.5 percent of total U.S. employment. Believe it or not, that number approaches the level of employment in the heath care sector or the entire manufacturing sector. And between 1997 and 2002, the rate of

job growth in the copyright industry exceeded that of the U.S. economy as a whole.

That is why protecting intellectual property rights worldwide is critical. It is not just a concern for the overall health of the U.S. economy. And it is not just a concern of this or that company. It is a concern of each and every worker that the intellectual property industries employ. And it is a concern of each and every one of us that enjoys going to see the latest movie, likes wearing a hip new pair of Nike shoes, or needs the most innovative life saving drug.

Unfortunately, while we have a robust IPR regime here in America, some of our trading partners do not. In certain countries, IPR theft is rampant.

China is probably the most notorious example. USTR reports that counterfeiting and piracy in China are at ``epidemic levels and cause serious harm to U.S. businesses in virtually every sector of the economy.'' In fact, as USTR pointed out, one U.S. trade association claims that counterfeiting and piracy in China exceeds 90 percent. Estimates of the value of counterfeit and pirated goods in China are between $19 billion and $24 billion in 2001. That translates into losses of $2.5 to $3.8 billion to U.S. industry.

Russia is also a serial IPR violator. The scale of intellectual property rights infringement there is vast and growing. Russia's legal framework has huge gaps, and the enforcement of existing laws is lax. This has real costs. Estimated losses to U.S. copyright industries due to piracy of films, videos, sound recordings, books, and computer software continue to exceed $1 billion annually. Over 80 percent of all DVDs on the Russian market are estimated to be pirated. Pirated music is estimated at 66 percent of sales, and software piracy is estimated at about 88 percent.

IPR violations in Brazil are also very troubling, particularly given that Brazil is both a WTO member and receives benefits from the United States under the Generalized System of Preferences. USTR reports that estimated losses in Brazil due to piracy of copyrighted materials totaled over $930 million in 2004 alone. An estimated 75 percent of audiocassettes sold in Brazil are pirated.

These violations run counter to the entire spirit and purpose of World Intellectual Property Day. Rather than foster an environment that encourages thought, imagination, and creativity, IPR violations in China, Russia, Brazil, and other countries stifle creativity and innovation. They send the chilling message that the short-term profit of pirates, counterfeiters, and other IPR thieves matter more than the long term gains of society.

We need to crack down on countries that fail to protect and enforce intellectual property rights. We should use all tools at our disposal to address barriers to thought, imagination, and creativity.

In my view, we are long overdue in initiating a WTO case with China for its failure to comply with its obligations under the WTO's TRIPS agreement, particularly in the area of copyrights.

In my view, we should not give a green light to Russia's bid to join the WTO until Russia makes visible and sustained improvements to its legal regime as well as a demonstrable commitment to long-term enforcement.

And in my view, we should not continue to give countries with serious intellectual property deficiencies, like Russia and Brazil, GSP benefits until they clean up their act.

That is why I am today cosponsoring with Senator Lugar a sense-of- the-Senate resolution on the importance of protecting intellectual property. Among other things, this resolution urges the administration to use all effective remedies to address the lack of intellectual property protection. It also urges the administration to take action to ensure that China, Russia, and our other trading partners comply with their international trade obligations.

Think, imagine, create, that is the theme of this year's World Intellectual Property Day. I hope that next year we can celebrate an improved global environment that truly fosters these important aspirations.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Hatch and Grassley, in introducing legislation that will allow associations to make health insurance available to employers without either wondering if the full premium is deductible, or holding minimal reserves.

Across this country, many associations sponsor health insurance plans for member employers--plans that provide health coverage for thousands of working Americans. These arrangements allow smaller employers to get a better deal on insurance than they could on their own. As we struggle to improve the number of Americans who have health insurance coverage, we surely want to encourage an arrangement that provides cost-effective health benefits.

In order to smooth the cost of these medical benefits, these plans often hold reserves that are more than is necessary to cover unpaid claims that have been incurred at the end of the year. We should encourage that practice. But current law discourages these plans from holding more than the bare minimum in reserve.

The problem is that these plans use welfare trusts as a vehicle to fund the benefits. Under current law, if a state trade association sponsors a health welfare trust, and that trust does not charge every participant the same premium, then that plan may have to go back to employers after the end of the year and say ``Sorry. You can't deduct all of that premium we asked you to pay last year.'' Either that, or the association has to keep premiums low enough to avoid non-deductible contributions, and risk under-funding the benefits. That is not a good outcome.

So we have a simple solution here. This bill allows these association health plans to maintain reserves of thirty-five percent of annual costs without jeopardizing the deductibility of employer contributions to the trust. With current technology, claims are usually processed in a matter of days, not months, so thirty-five percent of annual costs is more than is normally needed to cover unpaid claims at the end of the year. That will leave a cushion to cover adverse experience, and help smooth future premium fluctuations.

This simple change will allow bona fide associations all over this country to not only continue providing health benefits, but to secure those benefits with adequate reserves. Plans like the State Bankers Association Group Benefits Trust that has been operating out of my home town of Helena, Montana, since 1978. This Trust provides health insurance to employees of banks in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. Forty- nine Montana banks provide coverage for nearly 3,000 Montanans through this program.

This bill is important to the employers and employees who get health insurance coverage through the State Bankers' trust, and the many other association health trusts in Montana and around the country. We encourage our colleagues to join us in helping associations continue to provide health benefits to tens of thousands of American workers and their families.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Hatch and Grassley, in introducing legislation that will allow associations to make health insurance available to employers without either wondering if the full premium is deductible, or holding minimal reserves.

Across this country, many associations sponsor health insurance plans for member employers--plans that provide health coverage for thousands of working Americans. These arrangements allow smaller employers to get a better deal on insurance than they could on their own. As we struggle to improve the number of Americans who have health insurance coverage, we surely want to encourage an arrangement that provides cost-effective health benefits.

In order to smooth the cost of these medical benefits, these plans often hold reserves that are more than is necessary to cover unpaid claims that have been incurred at the end of the year. We should encourage that practice. But current law discourages these plans from holding more than the bare minimum in reserve.

The problem is that these plans use welfare trusts as a vehicle to fund the benefits. Under current law, if a state trade association sponsors a health welfare trust, and that trust does not charge every participant the same premium, then that plan may have to go back to employers after the end of the year and say ``Sorry. You can't deduct all of that premium we asked you to pay last year.'' Either that, or the association has to keep premiums low enough to avoid non-deductible contributions, and risk under-funding the benefits. That is not a good outcome.

So we have a simple solution here. This bill allows these association health plans to maintain reserves of thirty-five percent of annual costs without jeopardizing the deductibility of employer contributions to the trust. With current technology, claims are usually processed in a matter of days, not months, so thirty-five percent of annual costs is more than is normally needed to cover unpaid claims at the end of the year. That will leave a cushion to cover adverse experience, and help smooth future premium fluctuations.

This simple change will allow bona fide associations all over this country to not only continue providing health benefits, but to secure those benefits with adequate reserves. Plans like the State Bankers Association Group Benefits Trust that has been operating out of my home town of Helena, Montana, since 1978. This Trust provides health insurance to employees of banks in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. Forty- nine Montana banks provide coverage for nearly 3,000 Montanans through this program.

This bill is important to the employers and employees who get health insurance coverage through the State Bankers' trust, and the many other association health trusts in Montana and around the country. We encourage our colleagues to join us in helping associations continue to provide health benefits to tens of thousands of American workers and their families.

Mr. President, I rise to support the efforts of my friend and colleague Senator Mikulski to protect payments to the families of our brave Americans serving and dying for this country. There are currently 1,254 Montanans deployed overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan with one-third of those deployed coming from our guard and reserve forces. We have lost seven service members since the war on terrorism began and with each sacrifice I am made more aware of the strength and commitment of our military families.

Senator Mikulski has wisely offered an amendment to ensure that the additional death gratuity benefits would not be subject to taxes, just as other death gratuity benefits for military families are tax-free. It is certainly my hope that such an amendment is not needed. However, I have promised to work with Senator Mikulski and my good friend, Chairman Grassley, to clarify that this is the case, should there be any question in the future about the tax-free status of these payments. Certainly, for these families who have already given so much to this country, it is the right thing to do.

Mr. President, I wish to address several amendments offered to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill this week. We are debating this emergency appropriation primarily to see to the needs of the men and women who are serving on the front line in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's because it's our job to make sure that our troops get the support and the resources they need when they need them.

But there is another front line we should not forget about, and that includes the home front. And serving on the home front are the men and women of the National Guard, Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs agents, as well as the police forces who serve in big and small communities alike.

They, too, need resources and support from Congress. And while we have a process by which Congress determines on a yearly basis what those needs are, I am not content to just wait and see. I am concerned about the fate of important legislation that was passed last fall that authorized putting more border patrol agents on our front line--which more and more often is up on the highline of Montana, and not only across desert stretches on the Southern border.

That legislation, which was negotiated as part of the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 and signed by President Bush, recognized for more personnel patrolling our borders. Now, while the administration's fiscal year 2006 budget did not propose the funding called for in that legislation, it is up to all of us in Congress to make sure that the border patrol gets the help it needs. That is why I am a cosponsor of Senator Byrd's amendment to deliver the funds our border security personnel deserve.

But we have to do more. We need to help the border patrol and other Federal and State law enforcement agencies get their workload under control and focus on the most serious threats to our Nation's security.

Surely, we all want to know who the millions of undocumented aliens are who cross our borders each year. And many of these people live and work amongst us. The vast majority of these undocumented workers are here because there are jobs--in the service, agricultural or other sectors--for which employers cannot find willing American workers.

As long as tough standards are in place for (1) proving that no willing American workers could be found, (2) documenting the background of the worker and the nature of the work, and (3) consequences for breaking the law, I think we are a safer Nation when we encourage illegal migrants and their employers to come out from the shadows and show themselves.

Encouraging employers and foreign workers to work within the bounds of law will allow our border agents to better focus their efforts on those who would enter the country to do our citizens harm. And up on the Northern border, what used to be our nation's backdoor and is quickly becoming the front door, we face that more unlikely threat precisely because all eyes are on the southern border.

I'm not talking about amnesty, and I'm not talking about rushing into some sweeping immigration reform. I think that requires broader and more considered deliberation by Congress. But it does make sense to begin to document and track the movement of illegal migrants who would otherwise pay taxes and abide by our laws if they could earn the chance to do so. This in turn helps our small and seasonal businesses maintain a reliable, screened and legal workforce, and it allows us to focus our attention on stopping would-be terrorists from crossing our borders.

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

Madam President, I feel very strongly that we must increase our border security. The resources of our National Guard, law enforcement, and Customs and Border Patrol agents are stretched way too thin and they need our help, especially along the northern border. Their ability to successfully carry out their daily duties is of critical importance to the safety of all Americans.

We must protect our borders better and work to increase the apprehension of illegal aliens crossing into the United States.

The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act we passed in 2004 authorized the hiring of 2,000 new Border Patrol agents. Yet the President's budget only proposed 210 new agents--about 10 percent of what is authorized.

The Border Patrol has been dangerously underfunded. That is why I cosponsored Senator Byrd's Border Patrol amendment, which passed yesterday, and why I supported Senator Ensign's amendment today.

I recognize we are fighting the war on terrorism overseas, but we need more agents, investigators, detention, and deportation officers at home.

Additional funding will ensure that more illegal aliens will be detained and our borders will be tightened against all threats, especially terrorism. The best way to prevent terrorism in the United States is to prevent terrorists from entering the United States.

In my State of Montana, we deal with the vast northern border and the terrain is not easy to patrol. As you can imagine, as the southern border is tightened, our northern border, which used to be America's back door, is quickly becoming the front door. We need more agents; it is that simple. That border is long. Agents can only cover so much territory. The agents need training and facilities.

In addition to personnel and training, we must also employ the latest technologies. The Border Patrol conducted successful tests using unmanned aerial vehicles--around here known as UAVs--along the southwest border in Arizona for surveillance and detection of individuals attempting to enter the U.S. illegally. Unfortunately, those operations were ceased at the end of January of this year. Thankfully, the funds provided in Senator Byrd's amendment will allow for the immediate resumption of these surveillance and detection operations. UAVs are a safe alternative to placing civilians in harm's way.

It is up to all of us in Congress--not just today, but in future days and weeks and months--to make sure the Border Patrol gets the help it needs. We must deliver the funds our border security personnel deserve to continue their work of apprehending illegal aliens, fighting the war on terrorism, and keeping the homefront safe.

I might add, it also applies to methamphetamines. There is a lot of that coming into our country across our borders. It is a huge problem. I daresay virtually every State in the Nation has a significant methamphetamine problem, and too much is being used by citizens in States. A lot of it is manufactured locally, but a lot is also imported. So more Border Patrol agents will help us fight not only terrorism, but the scourge of methamphetamines.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, engraved in stone on the panel behind the Presiding Officer are the words ``E pluribus unum''--``Out of many, one.''

The words also appear on the seal of the Senate, which appears on the flag the Senators see to the right of the Presiding Officer. It is one of my favorite mottos. It is the motto of the United States of America. The words mean, ``One unity, formed from many parts.'' They represent the Senate well. For it is here in the Senate our Nation has been brought together. It is here in the Senate our Nation's leaders have worked out many of the great compromises that have bridged the issues of the day. It is here in the Senate that disparate interests in our Nation have become one.

The Senate is a place of unity, a place of compromise, and a place of consensus, because of its rules. The Senate works to force unity, not because its rules make it easy to get things done, but because the rules make it so hard. Because the Senate's rules require Senators to assemble majorities of three-fifths, and sometimes two-thirds, the rules force Senators to find policy positions that appeal more broadly, that transcend party, that bring more Senators together.

Because its rules make it so hard to get things done, the Senate does much of its work through the ultimate expression of unity--through unanimous consent.

Because the Senate's rules make it hard to get things done, Senators must work together to get things done. Because the Senate's rules make it hard to get things done, no Senator may completely disrespect a second Senator because a second Senator might hold up the first Senator's legislation.

Because the rules make it harder to get things done, the Senate has collegiality and comity. It is that simple. The rules make it harder to get things done, and that forces us together. Because the Senate rules make it harder to get things done, Senators of one party must reach out to the moderates of another party.

Let me state for the record, as my colleagues already know, I am one of those moderates. Since 1978, I have worked in this Chamber to put Montana first, to use common sense, to be effective, and to get things done. Because of the way the Senate works and because of the way I work, that has meant working together with other Senators, often across the aisle.

I have worked together with Republicans to cut taxes, to reform environmental laws, to open international markets to American trade, and to update Medicare to provide prescription drugs. Why? Because all those are important, and it is important to work together to get those things done.

One of the reasons moderates, like me, of both parties can move compromises and consensus legislation is because the rules of the Senate require getting more than a simple majority.

Contrast that with the House of Representatives. There the rules make it easy to get things done. But there, it is a rare exception when Members craft legislation to appeal broadly, across party lines. There the majority passes the legislation that represents the strongest achievable expression of the majority party's position. Unity is not their goal.

One might call the result majority rule, but the reality is that the product of the House of Representatives often represents an even smaller fraction. The rules of the House of Representatives often encourage a majority of those in the majority party to decide policy and then to enforce that policy within the majority caucus. Because its rules make it so easy to get things done, Representatives of one party steamroll the moderates of their own party, let alone of the other party.

Thus, the rules of the House of Representatives foster sharper partisan division between the two parties. The rules of the Senate lead to the result: ``Out of many, one.'' The rules of the House lead to the result: ``Out of many, two.''

The Senate's rules are particularly important to a State with a small population, such as my home State of Montana. This is particularly true in light of the small House delegation that such small States have. Montana, as several other States, has one Representative in the House. States such as Montana rely on their Senators to allow their relatively greater influence to protect their interests. Without the Senate rules, rural America would have a much harder time getting heard. Sometimes it is good that the Senate's rules require more than a thin majority, in order to make sure that every part of the country is truly represented.

Fundamental to the Senate's rules, for two centuries, has been the right to extended debate. In the First Congress, Senators debated at length the permanent site for the Capitol. In 1811, the House of Representatives provided that a motion for the previous question could cut off further debate. But the Senate rules have not included such a motion since the 1806 codification of the rules. We cannot summarily cut off debate, as the House can. And even after the Senate adopted rule XXII of cloture in 1917, the Senate rules have required a supermajority to bring debate to a close. Since its revision in 1979, rule XXII has required the affirmative vote of 60 Senators to limit debate.

Thus, for two centuries, Democrats and Republicans alike have used the Senate's rules to protect the rights of the minority party. After two centuries, it would be a mistake to change those rules.

Extended debate allows Senators to protect minority interests. Extended debate gives life to the traditional story that Washington told Jefferson that, like pouring coffee into a saucer, ``we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.'' Extended debate makes the Senate, in Aaron Burr's words, ``a sanctuary; a citadel of law, of order, and of liberty.''

The Senate's rules thus help to protect personal rights and liberties. The Senate's rules help to ensure that no one party has absolute power. The Senate's rules help to give effect to the Founder's conception of checks and balances.

The Senate's right of extended debate is particularly important in the context of nominations for the lifetime jobs of Federal judges.

At the Constitutional Convention, the Founders debated different ways to appoint judges. On June 13, 1787, James Madison of Virginia proposed that the Senate make the appointments to protect the integrity, the independence of the third article; that is, the judges of the United States of America. On June 15, William Paterson of New Jersey

proposed that the President make the appointments. On July 18, Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts proposed a compromise, that the President make the appointment with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is, they both decide; not just the President, not just the Senate, they both do, again, to protect the integrity of the independence of our Federal judiciary.

The history of the Constitutional Convention thus demonstrates that the Founders hoped that both the President and the Senate could be involved in the process.

In its application, the Senate's involvement in the confirmation of judges has helped to ensure that nominees have had the support of a broad political consensus. The Senate's involvement has helped to ensure that the President could not appoint extreme nominees. The Senate's involvement has thus helped to ensure that judges have been freer of partisanship and, in fact, more independent.

The Founders wanted the courts to be an independent branch of Government, helping to exercise the Constitution's intricate systems of checks and balances. The Senate's involvement in the confirmation of judges has helped to ensure that the judiciary can be that more independent branch. And that independence of the judiciary, in turn, has helped to ensure the protection of personal rights and liberties in our country.

It is important that we get good judges. Over the years, this has been one of the issues of greatest importance to me as a Senator. That is why I worked to set up a merit selection system that is truly apolitical to select judges that I recommend to the President from my State of Montana. The Senate's rules help to make a merit selection possible.

I invite my colleagues to read the inscription in the marble relief over the Senate's door to my left. There is inscribed a single word: ``Courage.'' That is what preserving the Senate's rules will require: courage to stand up to the extremists; courage to stand up to the majority of one's party; courage to save the institution itself.

For Senators of either party, the simplest thing is usually to vote with the party. Voting with the party makes it easier to go to the party caucus lunch. Voting with the party makes it easier to hang on to a committee chairmanship.

To preserve this Senate will take the courage of at least six Senators in the majority party who are willing to vote for the institution first before their comfort at party lunches. It will take the courage of six Senators in the majority party who are willing to risk their chairmanships to protect the Senate--indeed, the country itself.

Let me offer this encouragement. I recall a decade ago in 1995, Senator Mark Hatfield from Oregon, who was then the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, told his majority leader, Senator Bob Dole, that he would rather resign from the Senate than vote for the constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget. Luckily, Senator Dole did not accept Senator Hatfield's offer, and Senator Dole later wrote:

While I strongly disagreed with his position, I also

respected any Senator's right to vote their conscience.

In retrospect, Republican Senators should see it was lucky for them that Senator Hatfield voted as he did. For if the Constitution required a balanced budget, it would have required the majority party to make massive cuts in Government services during the 5 years of deficits and, thus, if the Constitution required a balanced budget, the voters would have long ago punished Republican Senators for the cuts they would have made. They should thank Senator Hatfield that it did not pass. In the end, the sacrifices of these times ask that six Senators of the majority party stand up. The sacrifices that these times ask of six Senators from the majority party pales next to those of an earlier generation. Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson selected the words ``e pluribus unum'' as the Nation's motto on August 10, 1776. That was barely a month after they had published the document, the Declaration of Independence, in which they had written:

We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes

and our sacred Honor.

Just think of the courage of our Founding Fathers when they wrote the Declaration of Independence to break away from England knowing if they were apprehended, they would all be hanged. They knew that. Just think of their courage.

On the occasion of signing the Declaration, Benjamin Franklin is said to have warned: We must all hang together or surely we will all hang separately.

Our Founders sought unity from the very beginning. For unity, they were willing to risk their fortunes. For unity, they were willing to risk their lives. How many here can say that?

Today, to preserve the rules of the Senate that so foster unity, six Senators will be asked to risk much less. To preserve this Senate, they need not offer their fortunes. To preserve this Senate, they need not offer their lives. But to preserve this Senate, they will need to offer their courage.

I call on my colleagues in the majority to follow the exhortations engraved on the west door. I call on my colleagues to recall the courage of our Founders who risked their lives to give us this sacred inheritance of checks and balances. I call on my colleagues to summon the courage to vote against the effort to change the rules that make the Senate the place we love so much, that would change the Senate so much so that it will dramatically undermine the protection of liberties and the protection of our rights that so many Americans look to us to enforce.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The National Guard is proving to be the backbone of our efforts to protect America overseas, as they continue to play a pivotal role in homeland security. I saw this first hand 3 weeks ago when I spent a day working on the flight line with the 120th Fighter Wing of our Air National Guard in Great Falls, MT.

While doing pre-flight checks on F-16s and helping the ground crew with their maintenance tasks, I gained a new appreciation for the Guard's contribution to our communities.

Two-thirds of Montana's Air National Guard is made up of part-time citizen soldiers and their sacrifice is not going unnoticed. I am proud that I have the opportunity to reemphasize their contribution here today, in particular, since the Air Guard has recently made us very proud in Montana.

Under the leadership of Colonel Mark Meyer, our 120th Fighter Wing has been honored with three national awards for 2004--the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award, the Outstanding Security Forces Squadron of the Year Award, and the Maintenance Group Effectiveness Award.

The Air Force Outstanding Unit Award recognizes the exemplary achievements of the entire 120th Fighter Wing. On short notice the Wing deployed more than 200 airmen to the 332nd Air Expeditionary Wing at Balad Air Base, Iraq, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and at home they activated 185 people to fight Montana's second largest wildfire season on record.

The Air Force also bestowed an award on the Wing's Security Forces squadron, under the direction of Squadron Commander Major Donald Mahoney. They were honored with the Air National Guard Security Forces Unit Award.

Among their standout achievements was the logistical support they provided to the South Dakota Air National Guard Security Forces while their members conducted field training exercises at Fort Harrison in Helena. And, once again, our guardsmen operated on short notice.

Their Combat Arms Specialists performed weapons qualifications for over 300 personnel in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. They completed these tasks while protecting the Northern border between Montana and Canada and collaborating with Montana's local, civil, and military emergency services agencies.

Under the leadership of Maintenance Commander Lieutenant Colonel Kendall Switzer, the members of the 120th Fighter Wing Maintenance Group earned the Air National Guard's Maintenance Effectiveness Award for their extraordinary aircraft maintenance.

Their hard work and expertise supported three important missions: Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Alert Detachment at March Air Reserve base in California, and the Combat Air Patrol Missions of Operation Nobel Eagle.

I offer a tremendous ``Well Done'' to the Air National Guard. Thank you to your families, friends, employers and communities. The nation appreciates you and in Montana we are proud of our 120th Fighter Wing.

Congratulations!

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 549, an amendment in the second degree.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I have a modification to my amendment. It changes the effective date. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified with the text I send to the desk.

Mr. President, this is an amendment which I think is agreeable all the way around. It addresses the basic problem we are facing where the U.S. Government is essentially changing the rules of the game. I hope the Senate will adopt this amendment so we can overturn the Treasury Department ruling.

This is for farmers, this is for ranchers, this is for agricultural cooperatives, and this is for shipping companies and port authorities around our country. It is not only my State of Montana but Mississippi, Alaska, Alabama, and others. Farmers in all of our States are looking for new markets. That is clear. They are asking Congress to expand current markets and open up new markets overseas, including the country of Cuba.

Last year alone, Cuba was worth $400 billion of U.S. agricultural exports, making it the 25th agricultural export market. This amendment I worked on with Senator Chambliss and Senator Craig would overturn a recent Treasury Department rule that restricts the payment terms of agricultural sales to Cuba. That rule cuts across $200 million worth of open contracts, including sales of Montana wheat and beans.

These contracts are now on hold. The shipments cannot be made. Why? Because of the recent Treasury ruling which we all think has gone way beyond the intent of legislation. I do not think we should sit idly by as Government bureaucrats down at Treasury try to shut down a promising export market that, again, Congress purposely opened.

Congress, in the 2000 act, opened trade to Cuba for agriculture and medicine on a cash basis. This amendment does nothing to change that. It makes sure we live up to that intent. Congress purposely opened the market of Cuba to U.S. exporters when it passed the Trade Sanctions and Export Enhancement Act of 2000. While I think there is a lot more we can do and should do to make our exporters more competitive in the Cuban market, this amendment does nothing more than deal with the emergency they are now experiencing.

Agricultural trade with Cuba will remain on a one-way cash basis only. We do not seek to change that here. But why should we turn down opportunities to sell even on a cash basis from Cuba? We should not. Producers, port authorities, and shipping companies alike urgently need this rule overturned if they are going to remain competitive in the Cuban market.

I remind my colleagues, every other country in the world freely ships products to Cuba. We are the only country in the world that is restricted. Other countries' trade is some indication we should perhaps trade as well. This amendment does not deal with lifting the travel ban. It does not deal with the embargo or anything else, except it makes clear the act we passed in the year 2000 is lived up to. That is all this is.

Our farmers and ranchers face mounting pressures of a tricky trade surplus. We should be working to open, not close, export markets with them.

I thank my colleagues for working this out. I see Senator Chambliss in the Chamber. I thank him and I thank Senator Craig. I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran, and others who are trying to make sure our agricultural producers are able to get markets they justly deserve.

I yield the floor.

I object.

I object.

Mr. President, not too many years ago, Senator Mike Mansfield, a great former Senator from Montana, would have breakfast every morning with Senator George Aiken of Vermont. That helped develop a strong relationship between the two of them. It helped bridge party differences. In addition to the goodwill of Senator George Aiken of Vermont, those daily breakfasts contributed to the collegiality in the Senate.

I like to think that there is something about Vermont, about the people of Vermont, that is basic. They are down to earth. They know their roots. Their rudder is well set. They are good people, commonsense people. That is why they elected George Aiken to come to the Senate.

It must also be why they elected Jim Jeffords because Jim Jeffords is a

real person. What he says is true. He doesn't speak in long paragraphs or long treatises because he doesn't have to. He gets straight to the point. He is a man of few words because he doesn't have to equivocate, doesn't have to qualify, doesn't have to dissemble. He just gets straight to the point.

I have found that in my relationship with that wonderful man, Jim Jeffords. We work together on the Environment and Public Works Committee. Time and time again he turns to me, defers to me, and says: Max, whatever you want to do, that is fine with me.

I know that he is also saying: Just keep me informed of what you are doing. And I do. It is a wonderful personal relationship. We know each other. We trust each other eminently, immediately. We don't have to ask questions such as: What do you really mean? We don't question assumptions. We just know.

That is Jim Jeffords.

It has been said that he believes strongly in a few issues, and he does. The environment certainly is one. There are other issues in which my friend from Vermont believes. If you will pardon the overworked phrase, one might possibly disagree with Jim, but he does so in such an agreeable manner that you don't know that there is really a disagreement.

It has been said on the floor of the Senate not too long ago that it is hard to name a Senator who could walk into a restaurant and get the same applause, stand-up applause, as Jim Jeffords has so many times around this country.

It is true, he does and he did. It is because people recognize his intestinal fortitude. It took a lot of courage for him to decide he was, after all, an Independent and not a Republican. It was a very difficult decision. But he did it. He did it on the basis of principle. People know that. They see that. They sense that, and they understand that. That is why they stand and applaud Jim Jeffords. It is not just the United States, it is in other cities around the world, where people would stand up and applaud when the U.S. Senator from Vermont would walk into the room. In his usual way, Jim would be very humble about it, and it would not go to his head. He would not take it seriously. Obviously, it was not something he disagreed with, but it didn't go to his head.

I am hard-pressed to think of any man I know who is as wonderful as my good friend and colleague from Vermont. I am sad to see him retire. The Senate needs more people like Senator Jeffords. I hope whoever replaces him as Senator from Vermont is in the mold of Jim Jeffords.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to memorialize the life and accomplishments of Dr. Maurice Hilleman, a renowned microbiologist and native son of Montana.

Dr. Maurice R. Hilleman dedicated his life to developing vaccines for mumps, measles, chickenpox, pneumonia, meningitis and other diseases, saving tens of millions of lives. He died on Monday at a hospital in Philadelphia at the age of 85.

Raised on a farm in Montana, Dr. Hilleman credited much of his success to his boyhood work with chickens, whose eggs form the foundation of so many vaccines. Much of modern preventive medicine is based on Dr. Hilleman's work, though he never received the public recognition of Salk, Sabin or Pasteur. He is credited with having developed more human and animal vaccines than any other scientist, helping to extend human life expectancy and improving the economies of many countries.

According to two medical leaders, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Dr. Paul A. Offit, chief of infectious diseases at Children's Hospital in Philadelphia, Dr. Hilleman probably saved more lives than any other scientist in the 20th century. ``The scientific quality and quantity of what he did was amazing,'' Dr. Fauci is quoted as saying. ``Just one of his accomplishments would be enough to have made for a great scientific career. One can say without hyperbole that Maurice changed the world with his extraordinary contributions in so many disciplines: virology, epidemiology, immunology, cancer research and vaccinology.''

Dr. Hilleman developed 8 of the 14 vaccines routinely recommended: measles, mumps, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, chickenpox, meningitis, pneumonia and Haemophilus influenzae bacteria. He also developed the first generation of a vaccine against rubella, also known as German measles. The vaccines have virtually vanquished many of the once common childhood diseases in developed countries.

In addition, Dr. Hilleman overcame immunological obstacles to combine vaccines so that one shot could protect against several diseases, like the MMR vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella. He developed about 40 experimental and licensed animal and human vaccines, mostly with his team from Merck of Whitehouse Station, NJ His role in their development included lab work as well as scientific and administrative leadership.

And as a sign of his humility, Dr. Hilleman routinely credited others for their roles in advances, according to his colleagues.

Vaccine development is complex, requiring an artistry to safely produce large amounts of weakened live or dead microorganisms. Dr. Offit once said, ``Maurice was that artist: no one had the green thumb of mass production that he had.'' The hepatitis B vaccine, licensed in 1981, is credited as the first

to prevent a human cancer: a liver cancer, known as a hepatoma, that can develop as a complication of infection from the hepatitis B virus.

One of Dr. Hilleman's goals was to develop the first licensed vaccine against any viral cancer. He achieved it in the early 1970s, developing a vaccine to prevent Marek's disease, a lymphoma cancer of chickens caused by a member of the herpes virus family. Preventing the disease helped revolutionize the economics of the poultry industry. Dr. Hilleman's vaccines have also prevented deafness, blindness and other permanent disabilities among millions of people, a point made in 1988 when President Ronald Reagan presented him with the National Medal of Science, the Nation's highest scientific honor.

Because scientific knowledge about viruses was so limited when he began his career, Dr. Hilleman said that trial and error, sound judgment and luck drove much of his research. Luck played a major role in the discovery of adenoviruses. Dr. Hilleman flew a team to Missouri to collect specimens from troops suffering from influenza. But by the time his team arrived, influenza had died out. Fearing that he would be fired for an expensive useless exercise, Dr. Hilleman seized on his observation of the occurrence of a fresh outbreak of a different disease. His team discovered three new types of adenoviruses among the troops.

In the early 1950s, he made a discovery that helps prevent influenza. He detected a pattern of genetic changes that the influenza virus undergoes as it mutates. The phenomenon is known as drift--minor changes--and shift--- major changes. Vaccine manufacturers take account of drift in choosing the strains of influenza virus included in the vaccines that are freshly made each influenza season. Shifts can herald a large outbreak or pandemic of influenza, and Dr. Hilleman was the first to detect the shift that caused the 1957 Asian influenza pandemic. He read an article in the New York Times on April 17, 1957, about influenza among infants in Hong Kong--cases that had escaped detection from the worldwide influenza surveillance systems. At the time, he directed the central laboratory for worldwide military influenza surveillance and was sure that the cases represented the advent of an influenza pandemic. So he immediately sent for specimens from Hong Kong and helped isolate a new strain of influenza virus. He also demanded that breeders keep roosters that would otherwise have been slaughtered so they could fertilize enough eggs to prepare 40 million doses of influenza to protect Americans against the 1957 influenza strain.

Standing tall at six-foot-one and wearing reading glasses that rested on the tip of his nose, Dr. Hilleman described himself as a renegade. He often participated in scientific meetings, where he could be irascible while amusing his colleagues with profane asides. At one of many meetings with this physician-reporter, a Thanksgiving Day dinner during a conference at the World Health Organization in Geneva in the 1980s, Dr. Hilleman said he was driven by a goal to get rid of disease and by a belief that scientists had to serve society.

Maurice Ralph Hilleman was born on Aug. 30, 1919, in Miles City, MT. His mother and twin sister died during his birth. In 1937, he went to work in the local J. C. Penney's store where he helped cowpokes, as he described his customers, pick out chenille bathrobes for their girlfriends, and he was well on the way to a career in retailing until his oldest brother suggested that he go to college. After graduating from Montana State University in 1941, he received his Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of Chicago and then joined E. R. Squibb & Sons. There, he developed a vaccine against Japanese B encephalitis to protect American troops in the World War II Pacific offensive. In 1948, he moved to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and stayed until 1957, when Vannevar Bush, then chairman of Merck and a former director of the Federal Office of Scientific Research and Development in World War II, persuaded him to direct a virus research program for the drug company.

After retiring as senior vice president for Merck research laboratories in 1984, Dr. Hilleman continued to work on vaccines, saying they were needed for at least 20 diseases, including AIDS. Dr. Hilleman is survived by his wife, Lorraine, a retired nurse; two daughters, Jeryl Lynn of Palo Alto, CA., and Kirsten J. of New York City; two brothers, Victor, of Fontana, CA., and Norman, of Santa Barbara, CA.; and five grandchildren. His daughter Jeryl Lynn is at least in part responsible for the mumps vaccine. In 1963, when her salivary glands started to swell with the disease, Dr. Hilleman swabbed her throat and went on to isolate the virus. He then weakened it and within 4 years had produced the now-standard mumps vaccine. The weakened strain bears her name.

Mr. President, it is an honor for me to pay my respects to such a great and accomplished man as Dr. Maurice Hilleman. And it is an honor for me to call him a fellow Montanan.

Mr. President, today, we will pass legislation in the Senate that provides tax relief to all Americans receiving disaster mitigation grants from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. I am pleased that my good friend, Senator Grassley, and I, along with my colleagues, Senators Landrieu, Bond, Feinstein, Lott, Martinez, Nelson, and Vitter could work together to add a necessary and important amendment to H.R. 1134, which exempts disaster mitigation payments from taxation.

For 15 years, FEMA has awarded natural disaster mitigation grants that assist citizens, businesses and communities to take steps to prevent or mitigate damages from future natural disasters. The grants go towards elevating buildings in floodplains, flood proofing, seismic reinforcement, acquisitions or relocations, wind protections for roofs and strengthening of window protections. These grants provide a long- term benefit to society by reducing future loss of life and increasing public safety. In addition to these life-saving benefits, mitigation grants also provide a net cost benefit to society. FEMA conducts a cost-benefit analysis prior to awarding a grant that ensures the cost of funding a project is less than the damages expected to occur in the event of a disaster. FEMA estimates that for every dollar spent on mitigation, an average of eight dollars is saved in the long run.

Let me take a minute to explain the history of the tax issue at hand. Prior to June of last year, recipients of FEMA mitigation grants generally excluded them from income. The tax code states clearly that post-disaster grants were not taxable. But the tax code doesn't specifically describe the tax treatment of mitigation grants. FEMA assumed mitigation grants were treated the same as post-disaster relief grants. However, on June 28, 2004, the Internal Revenue Service issued a legal memorandum stating these mitigation grants were taxable as income. That means that someone who took advantage of mitigation opportunities to prevent future losses would face a significant tax liability. The average mitigation grant is $83,000. That means the average tax on a grant is tens of thousands of dollars. That isn't fair. It was never intended that taxes be collected under these mitigation programs, but under the legal memorandum issued by the Internal Revenue Service thousands of taxpayers may have to file amended tax returns and pay additional tax. Moreover, the Federal Government changed the rules and never made the recipients aware of the potential tax consequences.

I compliment the House for taking up this issue and passing legislation that helps taxpayers who receive mitigation grants after the date of enactment. However, there is a flaw in the House bill. The bill clearly provides tax relief to ``amounts received after the date of enactment.'' What about taxpayers who received mitigation grants in 2004 or 2003 and before? The chairman of the Finance Committee and I have added an amendment that provides absolute certainty for all taxpayers who received grants in past years. Some have argued that the Department of the Treasury can provide tax relief for those who received grants prior to the date of enactment by using the intent gleaned from floor statements and letters from Members of Congress. Let me be clear, Congress writes laws and the clearest intent is in the letter of the law. If our intent is to provide tax relief for those who received grants before the date of enactment, we should write it into the law. And that is what the amendment my good friend Senator Grassley and I have offered.

Before I finish, I want to thank Senators Landrieu, Nelson and Feinstein for their tireless work. I can tell you firsthand there was a significant amount of pressure to pass this bill as it was sent from the House. We all wanted to pass this bill as quickly as possible, but we also wanted to be sure we got it right the first time. This bill does that.

I sincerely hope the House will do the right thing and pass this bill with the Senate amendment before the tax filing deadline on Friday.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I ask that the pending amendments be temporarily set aside so I might offer an amendment.

I might tell the chairman that is certainly fine with this Senator.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first I thank the chairman of the committee, second my good friend from Idaho, Senator Craig, and other Senators who have cosponsored this amendment. There are at the present moment about 30 cosponsors of this amendment. It is bipartisan. I might say there is tremendous interest in this legislation also in the other body.

To review where we are, back in the year 2000, not too many years ago, we in the Congress approved legislation called the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act, otherwise known as TSREEA. What was the point of that legislation? It was legislation which authorized cash-in-advance food and medicine sales to Cuba. That is, the Congress carved out a substantive area of food and agricultural sales to Cuba. It did not provide a broad-brush authorization for trade with Cuba; rather, it narrowed it to food and to medicine for humanitarian reasons. It just made sense for the United States to be able to send its medicine and its food products, its agriculture, to Cuba. Clearly this made a lot of sense. Food should never be used as a weapon, and surely no dictator has ever missed a meal.

Second, big government has no business telling the U.S. farmers and ranchers to whom they could sell their products, for a lot of reasons. One is agriculture is facing such dire straits in many parts of our country. In addition, U.S. agriculture is facing a shrinking trade surplus. It used to be agriculture products exported overseas were the one big bright spot in the trade imbalance. That is no longer true. Agricultural programs are under tremendous pressure from budget cuts-- more so now than has been the case in the past.

We should be looking around for new markets for American products, not

cutting out export markets for American agricultural products. Cuba certainly presents a promising market for Montana and for American agriculture. Yet, unbelievably, the Treasury Department has recently issued a new rule. That rule makes it harder, it makes it much more difficult, for U.S. farmers and ranchers to sell agricultural products to Cuba. It makes it much more difficult in spite of the intent of the law we passed in 2000.

This rule by Treasury requires Cuba to pay for goods before shipment instead of before delivery, as was the case in the last 3 years after the act was passed. For some reason, here in 2005, a few years after the act has been in operation and working, the Treasury Department passes new regulations, just out of the blue, which make it much more difficult for American farmers to sell their products to Cuba. If Cuba pays for the goods while they are still on U.S. soil, these goods, under this new rule, become Cuban assets, which make them vulnerable to seizure to satisfy unrelated claims.

What is the effect of that? That has a very chilling effect. Treasury says it issued this rule as a ``clarification'' of the intent of Congress in the bill we passed in the year 2000. Let me be clear. My colleagues and I did not vote for a bill to enhance exports to Cuba that contained payment restrictions so severe as to render U.S. exports uncompetitive or worse. Clearly we did not pass a bill, we did not vote for a bill which makes it more difficult to sell agricultural products to Cuba rather than less difficult, and this regulation makes it more difficult. That was not the intent of Congress. We pass the laws. We decide what the laws of the Nation should be. It was our intent that agricultural sales should proceed unimpeded on a cash basis to Cuba.

When Treasury proposed this rule, I and colleagues on both sides of the aisle in both Chambers made our point very clear that we did not intend this. It was not our intent to have this interpretation.

Why is this so important? Cuba, the largest island in the Caribbean, was worth $400 million to U.S. agriculture exporters in the year 2004. Since 2001, Cuba has purchased more than $800 million in agricultural products from 35 States in our Nation, making that island the 25th largest export market for agricultural products.

A year and a half ago, I led a trade mission to Cuba, and I walked away with what I think is a pretty good deal for my State of Montana: $10 billion in agricultural products on a cash basis; and the fact is they bought $10.4 million of agricultural products from my State of Montana. I went back last December and signed a new agreement, this time worth $15 million for Montana agricultural products. Unfortunately, that agreement is now in jeopardy because of the new rule.

In the interim, Treasury passed this new rule. It also applied this new rule even to sales completed months earlier on a retroactive basis, which is totally unfair. The rule is wrong in the first place. It makes it doubly wrong when it is retroactive. We have $3 million worth of wheat and pea shipments lined up, and now they have to be renegotiated or abandoned because of this Treasury rule. That is wrong, just dead wrong. I, in this body, have worked hard to sell agricultural products to Cuba and will not stand idly by while Government bureaucrats try to undo all that hard work.

First, this reverses that Treasury rule and clarifies the intent of Congress for Cuba to pay cash for delivery of U.S. goods before delivery, not before shipment. This will ensure that cash sales continue as they have without interruption.

Second, the amendment gives general license to producers and port authorities to travel to Cuba whenever they have agreements to negotiate. This is a big point. Very often, the United States makes it very difficult with a huge amount of bureaucracy and paperwork to go through when the American agricultural exporter wants to go to Cuba to negotiate an agreement. It makes it difficult to do so if we can't go to Cuba to put the deal together.

Third, it requires greater transparency in visa processing for the Cuban buyers and inspectors who have legitimate itineraries in the United States related to the sale or inspection of TSREEA-authorized products.

Again, if a State has sales to Cuba, it only makes sense if the State Department can allow a representative for the Government of Cuba or the representative of agriculture, the purchaser, to come visit that State to see what products that State has in mind. So far the Government is making it very difficult for that to happen.

Fourth, this authorizes direct banking relations for authorized agricultural sales only. We are not talking about any other product. We are talking just about authorized agriculture sales--direct banking relations which would have the effect that U.S. banks can deal directly on this matter rather than as currently is the case where they would have to go through a third party, where European banks are making money off the U.S. agricultural sales.

Finally, this amendment repeals an obscure trademark law that benefits no U.S. company, but puts at risk thousands of U.S. trademarks, including those branded food products sold to Cuba in the past 3 years. Section 211's supporters say it protects confiscated trademarks but in fact makes very clear no government--not even Fidel Castro's--can expropriate legally registered trademark rights. It is impossible to do. That is why this provision must be enacted.

The truth is, section 211 was enacted to interfere in an ongoing rum label dispute. The fight is not my concern. But what concerns me is unless we fully repeal section 211, Cuba has the right, under international trademark law, to deny U.S. trademarks reciprocal recognition. That does not make any sense.

In conclusion, I am here to urge us to pass this amendment. It allows American farmers and ranchers a break. More importantly, let them do what we intended them to do when we passed that law in the year 2000. Let us send a message to Treasury that when we pass laws, we mean it. It is not for Treasury. They are the executive branch, and they are supposed to implement the laws, not make new laws, which in effect Treasury is doing by changing its regulations. They are being totally irresponsible. There comes a time when, frankly, it is up to us to put a stop to it and say this is not right and we are going to change it.

I see many of my friends on the floor. I thank my good friend from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, who cosponsored this amendment.

I say also that I support the trade amendment offered by Senator Craig, a perfecting amendment which will help implement the major underlying amendment which I described.

I yield the floor but reserve the time we have.

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I join my colleagues Senators Bunning, Johnson and Talent today in introducing legislation that will repeal the special occupational tax on taxpayers who manufacture, distribute, and sell alcoholic beverages.

The special occupational tax is not a tax on alcoholic products, but rather operates as a license fee on businesses. The tax is imposed on those engaged in the business of selling alcohol beverages. Believe it or not, this tax was originally established to help finance the Civil War. That war is over, and this inequitable tax has outlived its original purpose. Repealing the SOT will also simplify the tax code for thousands of small businesses.

The SOT on alcohol dramatically increased during the budget process in 1988 and has unfairly burdened business owners across the country since. From Thompson Falls to Sidney, from Chinook to Billings, small businesses are burdened with yet another tax in the form of the SOT. According to the Alcohol and Tobacco, Tax and Trade Bureau, there are 426,193 locations nationwide that pay the SOT every year, including 399,657 retailers. These retail establishments account for $99 million out of $103 million collected in SOT revenues.

In Montana, there are 2,969 locations which together pay nearly $1 million in the SOT every year. Seasonal resorts in Whitefish and Yellowstone, ``mom and pop'' convenience stores in Butte, and bowling alleys, flower shops, and restaurants across Montana, and the United States, pay the Federal Government over $100 million per year for the privilege of running businesses that sell beer, wine, or alcoholic beverages.

The SOT is extremely regressive. Retailers must annually pay $250 per location; wholesalers pay $500; vintners and distillers pay $1,000. Because the SOT is levied on a per location basis, a sole proprietorship must pay the same amount as one of the nation's largest retailers, and locally-owned chains having to pay per location, would have to pay as much as, if not more than, the nation's largest single site brewery. This is not what Congress had in mind 150 years ago, and I don't believe it's a situation we want today.

Repealing the SOT on alcohol is supported by a broad-based group of business organizations and enjoys wide-spread bipartisan support on Capitol Hill. Last year, we made progress in ending this burdensome tax on small businesses. We repealed the tax for three years. More can be done. Business owners across the United States deserve assurance that they won't be hit with this antiquated tax down the line.

The legislation preserves the TTB's record-keeping requirements, while removing the agency's enforcement burden, and will save over $2 million per year. The GAO examined SOT efficacy several times, and found it fundamentally flawed. The Joint Committee on Taxation called for the elimination of SOT in its June 2001 simplification study.

More than 90 percent of all SOT revenue comes from retailers--a great majority of those are small businesses. Our small business sector is a great strength of our economy. President Bush has said that the best way to encourage job growth is to let small businesses keep more of their own money, so they can invest in their business and make it easier for somebody to find work. Repealing the SOT would provide an immediate and visible tax cut to small business owners.

In recent months, there has been much talk of tax reform inside the beltway. President Bush has made tax reform one of his key priorities and established a panel that will make recommendations to the Department of Treasury for a better tax system. Getting rid of a tax that has outlived its original purpose is one small step toward reform that makes sense for Montana and our country. We urge our colleagues to join us in this endeavor.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.