Floor Statements

I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Louisiana.

I yield myself such time as I consume.

Mr. President, I first thank the chairman of our committee, Chuck Grassley, for the tremendous job he has done. I am blessed. We are all blessed to have him as chairman of our committee. He is very smart. He is very perceptive. He has terrific common sense and is wonderful to work with. He is as straight as they come. His word is his bond. If he tells you something, that is it. At the same time, when we work with him, it is very cooperative. In fact, he goes overboard. It reminds me of ``To Kill a Mockingbird'' when the protagonist, the lawyer, says: You walk around in his shoes to see that person's point of view. Chuck Grassley has the uncanny trait that he does not have to take the effort to walk around in another person's shoes because he already knows. He has walked around in so many shoes around Iowa. He has common sense that is rooted in the ground. He is a wonderful person. We are all very grateful to have him as chairman. I can say this having worked with him as the senior Democrat on the Finance Committee.

Second, I deeply thank all of our staff who helped with this legislation. They have been wonderful. I ask unanimous consent to have their names printed in the Record.

Finally, my greatest thanks are to the people of the State of Montana. I express my gratitude and thanks to the people of Montana for sending me here as their representative. I will never forget the people I work for. They are my bosses. They are my employers and the best anyone could ever have. I know each Member feels that way about his or her State. I am blessed to be able to represent Montana.

Frankly, it is for that reason that, preparing for this bill last year, my staff and I spent a lot of time in Montana meeting with workers and owners of businesses all across our State. We visited over 140 companies, 8 accounting firms and law firms, 11 economic development organizations in Montana. We spoke with about 60 companies over the phone, asking them what they thought about this legislation. How are Montana companies and interests affected by this bill? I simply wanted to know the biggest problems facing Montana businesses, I wanted to know what is working for them and what is not working for them, and I wanted to make sure that the manufacturing deduction in this bill will work for Montanans. Obviously, they had a lot of concerns.

People in my State, as in many States, are worried about job security, health security, and economic security. Will they have jobs tomorrow? Will their jobs be cut because business is slow? What about health insurance coverage with health care costs going up? Will their businesses be able to grow and compete with foreign competition?

We learned that any bill targeted to just corporations--that is, the standard corporation called C corporations--leave out most Montana businesses. That is because in Montana most businesses do not operate as conventional corporations. They work as partnerships or other enterprises that report their income not on a corporate basis but an individual income tax basis.

We needed a broader definition of manufacturing to ensure that Montana farmers and ranchers got some tax relief. That is what we are enacting in the bill.

I thank the hard-working men and women of Montana. Carlyle once said: All work is noble.

I thank the hard-working men and women of Montana for their help in formulating this legislation. I thank them for supporting me as we advanced this bill. And I thank them for their hard work in the businesses they run. So it is to them today we dedicate this bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before I yield to my friend from Louisiana, I would like to say how much I personally deeply appreciate and will miss the Senator from Louisiana. I don't know any Senator who works harder on a bipartisan basis to get things done than the Senator from Louisiana. He is amazing. He has so many talents.

Now, maybe he is partly Cajun, I don't know, but it is that Louisiana stuff that enables him to see more, do more, be more creative, think of more ideas than the rest of us mortals in the Senate. He is amazing. He is always thinking, always working. Many times in the Finance Committee I look over to the Senator from Louisiana and he is there working. He is reading reams of briefing materials. He has his magic marker out and he is underlining and learning this stuff. And he knows it so well.

There are many areas he does know so well. One is health care. He knows health care intricacies probably better than anybody else in this body. He has worked with it on several commissions. He cares passionately about reforming our health care system.

Tax policy, Social Security, you name it, if it is before the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, he is very knowledgeable about it. He also, frankly, wants solutions. It is not just that he has knowledge and is very smart, but he is looking to try to find solutions, looking for compromises, looking for ways to get things done.

We are going to sorely miss him; I mean sorely. I do not know what we are going to do without him because he is a catalyst, not the only catalyst but one of the major catalysts, here to get agreements, to get solutions. We all know how partisan this place is. He is one of those who is cutting against the grain to try to do what is right, do what is right for Louisiana, do what is right for the country, getting a practical solution: Come on, let's get something done here that makes sense. You may not like it totally, you may not like it completely, but, heck, you all know this is more than half a loaf, it is three- quarters, seven-eighths of a loaf, so it is certainly better than no loaf. So come on, let's get something done here.

He is wonderful. I want him to know how much I am personally going to miss him.

I yield to the Senator.

Mr. President, before I yield to the Senator, one final point. I know he had a hard time deciding whether to retire, a very hard time. I spoke with him several times. I did not want to prejudice him or bias him: Is there some way I can help John make this decision? And I mean that in the best sense of the term because, of course, I want him to stay.

On the other hand, I didn't want to influence his decision. I wanted him to do what is best for him. Because it was such a hard decision, that to me is very strong evidence again of the deep public service spirit and desire he has. He loves public service, serving the public as well as Louisiana but specifically the country generally.

He decided there are other things in life besides the Senate. I will not get into that subject. I don't think that is a subject on which very many of us want to tread. But we deeply appreciate the friendship, the legislative talents of the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I would like to ask the chairman of the Committee on Finance an additional question regarding the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.

I want to confirm that footnote 30 of the statement of conferees, relating to the methods and means of distribution of films, should not be read to create a negative inference with respect to the means of distribution of any other qualifying production property.

I thank the chairman.

Civil Rights Tax Relief

Mr. President, I congratulate Chairman Grassley for assuring that the conference committee included Section 703, civil rights tax relief, in the conference report. As a member of the conference committee, I was very pleased to support this very important provision, which enjoyed strong bipartisan support among Senate and House colleagues.

As I understand it, the case law with respect to the tax treatment of attorney's fees paid by those that receive settlements or judgments in connection with a claim of unlawful discrimination, a False Claims Act, ``Qui Tam,'' proceeding or similar actions is unclear and that its application was questionable as interpreted by the IRS. Further, it was never the intent of Congress that the attorneys' fees portions of such recoveries should be included in taxable income whether for regular income or alternative minimum tax purposes.

Is it the understanding of the chairman that it was the conferees' intention for Section 703 to clarify the proper interpretation of the prior law, and any settlements prior to the date of enactment should be treated in a manner consistent with such intent?

I thank Senator Grassley.

I yield myself time that is allotted under the rule. I appreciate if the Chair would advise me when I have 5 minutes remaining.

The British historian Thomas Carlyle said all work is noble. And Psalm 97, attributed to Moses, the psalmist's prayer says: Establish the work of our hands.

We all know the value and the meaning of work. It is so fundamental. Hard work counts. It helps us do what we need to get done. It also is good for the soul.

I am privileged in my State of Montana to have what I call workdays. I work at different jobs in Montana, show up early in the morning with a sack lunch, work all through the day. I don't want to watch, don't want to be told, shown what is going on. I would rather just do the work. It is wonderful. I got the idea from Bob Graham of Florida. Bob has done this for countless years, and I can tell the Presiding Officer it is one of the privileges of the job I have. I know other Senators do the same. I would suspect the Presiding Officer has done that himself. He knows what I am saying.

I can remember sitting on this very cold day outside of Butte, MT with a pipefitter trying to cut pipes and fit joints together. And I don't know how he did it, but he did it. I helped him. I probably caused more problems and mistakes that he had to correct. It meant so much to me to watch this pipefitter who so appreciated the value of his job and doing a good job. He wanted to do a super job, and he did. He worked hard to get it done.

Another job I remember is in a mine outside of Columbus, MN, a platinum and palladium mine. You go up in the shafts. I was working a jack drill to try to drill holes into which charges are placed. I was totally fouled up. I couldn't do it. This guy was so skilled. He was creative. I mean he was a craftsman, setting that drill bit at the right spot, drilling those holes so the charges could be set. Or working in a hospital with a nurse, watching her so completely conscientious, wanting to do a great job in making sure her patients felt good and tending to her patients.

This bill is about work.

That is what this is. I am sure at one level it is about complying with the WTO ruling to assure that the United States is in compliance and the United States is no longer assessed these fees. As one Senator said, it could go up to 17 percent, which is a huge burden on our companies.

So the bill before us is about work, it is about how we help more Americans do the work they want to do, how they and their companies can manufacture more products that are somewhat difficult to manufacture because of the onerous fees we are paying on your export-manufactured products, particularly to Europe.

On another level, this bill is about straightening out our Tax Code. There are a lot of problems with the Tax Code and loopholes. They are huge, massive. This legislation, to pay for the replacement provisions--that is, the manufacturing deduction that will allow companies to manufacture more--are paid for with essentially loophole closers, corporate loophole closers.

Some say this is a big corporate giveaway. That is just not accurate for two fundamental reasons. No. 1, there are many billions of dollars in loophole closers, tax shelters, for example, where a corporation has to list very dubious transactions so the IRS can look at them closely to see whether they are accurate. Several other post-Enron corporate abuse shelters that are closed down are also in this bill. It is many billions of dollars.

Second, there are provisions in the bill which help our international companies and are designed to achieve one purpose: avoid double taxation. The international tax provisions are extremely complicated, very complicated. Unfortunately, American companies often are taxed twice. They are taxed by the foreign country in which they are doing business and also, as they properly should be, by the U.S. Government.

We have a system, generally, where an international company is operating overseas but headquartered in the U.S., and it could generally take the taxes that are paid in another country and use that to offset taxes it pays in the U.S. to avoid double taxation. That is, the American company is taxed on its worldwide operations but doesn't have to pay twice, a second time, to that other country. There are many cases in the Tax Code where that doesn't work very well and, in effect, the corporation is taxed twice.

So these provisions that some people are complaining about are essentially designed to prevent double taxation. There may be provisions that Senators might argue with on the margin and split hairs, but, in the main, these provisions are designed to avoid double taxation.

Also, this bill is revenue neutral. Unfortunately, our country has accumulated massive Federal deficits--$415 billion for this year. This is a big bill. It is very large. It is large because it appeals to this regime which the WTO organization says is illegal. It is large because it replaces it with a structure which, as I mentioned, is a deduction for manufacturing done in the United States to help spur more manufacturing, and that is massive; it is massive because it closes corporate loopholes.

But in the end, when you add it all up, it is revenue neutral. It doesn't add one cent to the Federal deficit. It is a responsible bill. It accomplishes the objective of complying with the WTO, and it also closes a lot of loopholes. It is massive. Also, it is fair because it avoids corporations being double taxed.

This bill is not perfect. We all say many times around here that we should not let perfection be the enemy of the good. It is a platitude, it is commonplace, and we say it all the time. I often remind myself that sometimes the most trite things are the most true. That we should not let the perfection be the enemy of the good is a principle that we should apply here. We are 100 Senators, 435 House Members, and the President, and we cannot each have our own way. We have to work together and add up the pluses and minuses, and each Senator has to decide whether the pluses outweigh the minuses. In my judgment, it is very clear that the pluses here very much outweigh the minuses.

The FDA tobacco regulation is not in the bill. I wish it were. There was a general agreement. I was not part of it, but there was a general agreement with those who worked with the companies and the farmers on a design where there would be a buyout. That is my understanding of the general understanding. Unfortunately, the House was resistant. They didn't want to put the FDA regulation in the bill. The question is, Should we kill this bill because that is not in here? That is a tough choice for many Senators, as it is for me.

After all is considered, it is my judgment there is so much else that is good in the bill that it should pass. Unfortunately, we have to take up FDA regulation another day. I hope we do because I believe tobacco is a drug and it will help reduce a lot of deaths in the United States if that is properly regulated.

I am also a bit distressed about the provisions for Montana that are not in here, particularly for Indian reservations. I have several ideas on how reservations could get a better break. That is also not in the legislation.

Let me say one more thing and I will close and save the remaining few minutes. I want to explain one major corporate abuse, which is closed, but not sufficiently closed in this bill. The abuse is where an American financial institution will enter into a long-term lease, like say with the country of France, to build a subway system in France, for example. Because of the long-term lease, the American financial institution treats that as if it owns it and is able to take deductions against the lease purchase.

Now, those are deductions that the financial institution can take against earned income. It lowers the income of that company. The net result of that is this: In the end, the American company takes huge deductions. The foreign government, in this case France, would own the system in the end, but the American taxpayers essentially are paying for that subway system, not the French. In fact, there is a small fee paid by the French for the privilege of allowing the American financial institution to take the tax deduction. Americans are essentially subsidizing that subway system and that fattens up the wallet of the U.S. company and

the shareholders. Again, it is an extension of noncorporate shareholders as American taxpayers who are not shareholders of that company. It is an absolute outrage.

This legislation stops that from this day forward, but it does not stop it for ongoing, currently operating transactions. So, unfortunately, America will still be subsidizing this. There are many of these instances overseas and in America, but I am most concerned about overseas, where there are municipal construction projects-- subways, streets, you name it. I think that is wrong. I wish closing that down were in the bill. I will reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time.

Cloture Motion

This is a very important topic. As the Chairman of the Finance Committee will recall, the issue of customs authority was a major one in the debate leading up to passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The Finance Committee held a hearing in July 2002, followed by a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Governmental Affairs Committee. We stressed the importance of preserving the revenue collection and trade facilitation functions of the U.S. Customs Service, even as that agency moved into the Department of Homeland Security with an added national security focus. I would be pleased to engage in a colloquy on this topic with my good friend from Iowa.

Yes, and I believe we can both agree that our efforts were successful in preserving the revenue functions, commercial functions, and commercial operations of the Customs Service, including oversight of those functions and operations within the Committee on Finance.

I concur in thanking our colleagues for their cooperation in addressing this important issue. For the benefit of the record, would the Chairman of the Finance Committee outline the clarifications that have been added to the resolution?

That specific example is very helpful. Does the Chairman of the Finance Committee have any other examples in mind?

I thank the Chairman. Are there any other matters that fall within the exception to transfer of jurisdiction to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs?

I thank the Finance Committee Chairman. There is one last point, I think, we should address. First, I would like to add that it's my understanding that the Finance Committee has had jurisdiction over customs for 188 years, and so I am glad to see today that the Committee's expertise will continue to be brought to bear on the customs revenue functions and the commercial functions and operations of our customs officials. As part of that longstanding oversight, I note that referral of nominees for the position of Commissioner of Customs has been to the Finance Committee. I ask the Chairman, does he anticipate that such referral will continue in the future?

I thank the Chairman of the Finance Committee for his elaboration of the provisions that have been added to clarify the parameters of the jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and for his description of illustrative and non-exhaustive examples of the types of jurisdiction that will remain within the Committee on Finance.

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

Madam President, at this moment there are several matters pending before the Congress before we recess and/or adjourn. One of them is something that is extremely critical to a lot of people in our country and that is disaster assistance. It is not only the hurricanes in Florida, but it is the droughts farmers and ranchers have faced throughout our country, obviously especially in rural parts of America, and in my State, Montana, quite severely.

Montana has faced a drought, mostly around the southwestern part of our State. There are parts of Montana that are not droughted out. It is precarious. Because of the almost arbitrary patterns of nature, it is hard to know where it is going to rain or where it is

not going to rain, but the fact is, a lot of people are in very tough shape. They need disaster assistance just like the folks in Florida. Maybe Louisiana and Alabama need disaster assistance as well.

It is important for us to remember that we are here, frankly, to help Americans. We are not 50 different nations. We are one country. We are one Congress with one Senate and one House. We have one President. It is true that we have 50 States, but we are one country and we have one Congress. The Constitution provides Congress will enact legislation and the executive branch will administer the legislation, but it is up to us to do what is right for our country, for America.

Sometimes an argument is made, and I even heard this argument made on the floor, that hurricanes are sudden and when there is damage those folks deserve assistance, but droughts are over time; therefore, they don't deserve disaster assistance because it is not really a disaster. It is something that is an adverse consequence that happens over time.

Responsible Senators are making that argument to me. Actually, I question whether they are responsible if they are making that argument. It is a totally fallacious argument. It is wrong for a Senator to say, even if it is in private: You folks don't need agricultural disaster assistance because that's over time; that's not a sudden, immediate occurrence.

The problem, obviously, is that whenever there is a hurricane--and it is too bad, the damage it causes--our national networks focus on it because it is a sudden, at that time, at that one moment disaster, so the TV cameras are there, the correspondents are there. How many times did we see the shots of disaster in Florida? And well we should, because it is terrible what those people are going through. There were parts of Florida hit several times and we should help those people who need help. There is no doubt about that.

But, as I said, we should help those people who need help, and there are some other people who need help on account of nature's disastrous occurrences and they are farmers and ranchers. It is true that droughts have occurred every 4 or 5 or 6 years. But that does not diminish the argument that they need help, too. It is nature that caused the problem. They didn't cause the problem. They deserve help just as everybody else deserves help. We are one country, one Congress, one Senate, and one House, and we should very quickly give that aid, not only to the folks in Florida but also to the folks across our country who suffered disaster because of drought.

Many times on the floor Senators have shown photographs of drought in the country. It is real. I ask all Members--of course they don't have the time--to get out of Washington, DC. Get out of the cities. Go across America and see where the drought is. They are droughted out.

There are also floods which have totally destroyed crops. There are floods in eastern North Dakota, for example, near the Mississippi River. Take North Dakota, it is flood at one end of the State and it is drought at the other end of the State--they are both disasters. That is, both phenomena have destroyed the crops.

This is pretty simple stuff. It is very simple. It is basic. I don't know why we can't get together and help folks who suffered losses around the country, natural losses--we are talking about natural losses here--just as folks in the South, particularly Florida, suffered natural losses.

Then there is the other argument: There is a farm bill. The farm bill takes care of farmers. There is a farm bill and it is a pretty big farm bill.

Let's look at the facts. How much of that farm bill actually went to farmers? A very low percentage. Most of the farm bill, I might say, went to other programs--the Food Stamp Program. In fact, only about 18 percent of the total farm bill is dollars allocated to farmers and ranchers, essentially support payments. Why? To fight other countries that have bigger support payments for their farmers which make our crops even less competitive, so we have to have a farm bill to make sure our farmers are competitive, too. Clearly, that is one reason for the next round of the WTO talks, the Doha Round; namely, for producing nations to begin working together to lower some of their price supports, particularly export subsidies. That is the most heinous form of subsidy. Get rid of those export subsidies, as the Europeans have agreed they will begin to do, and then we can address the problems of the farmers.

But the main point is only 18 percent goes to farmers; the rest goes to other programs, mainly food stamp programs.

Add to that, that 18 percent is irrelevant to the phenomenon we are talking about. It is irrelevant. Why is it irrelevant? It is irrelevant because that is a farm program which pays farmers essentially only when they produce crops. It is a support payment program. It depends upon the price of crops. But when farmers do not produce any crops because of a natural disaster, the farm program does not help them. It doesn't help them and that is why we have agricultural disaster assistance programs. We have had several--many in the past. That is the same kind of program we should have right here today.

So I say to my colleagues who are now negotiating agricultural disaster assistance, the real question is, What do we do now? The House passed a $3 billion agricultural disaster assistance bill. It is folded into the hurricane assistance dollars. It is now over here in the Senate. The conferees are trying to decide whether that should be put in the Homeland Security appropriations, which is in conference.

I don't care about the process. That is irrelevant to me. I only care about the result. The result should be that, while we give aid to folks who suffer damage on account of the hurricanes, we should also give aid to our farmers and ranchers across our country who have suffered an equally devastating natural disaster. Let's just do it and do it now.

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

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

Madam President, what is the pending business?

Mr. President, I have an amendment to the underlying bill which I send to the desk.

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

Madam President, I offer this technical clarifying amendment to the underlying resolution. It

delineates committee jurisdiction. Part of it is with respect to the Customs Service, which the Finance Committee has had jurisdiction over for 188 years. Now the Homeland Security agency appropriately should handle all national security matters in protecting American security. It is appropriate that those functions be transferred to that department which has that jurisdiction.

It is also important that the Finance Committee maintain jurisdiction over not the national security aspects of Customs but the commerce aspects of Customs. This amendment clarifies that distinction. It is in no way intended to have jurisdiction over the security aspects of homeland security--only the commercial side, for which customarily the Finance Committee has the appropriate role.

Yes.

That is correct.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate agreed, by unanimous consent, to an amendment that Senator Grassley and I offered to S. Res. 445, the Senate intelligence reform resolution. Our amendment will preserve the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee over the commercial operations of what has historically been known as the United States Customs Service.

The United States Customs Service is one of the oldest agencies in the U.S. Government. It was created in 1789 to collect tariffs which, at that time, were the principal source of revenue funding the Federal Government.

Until 1816, the Senate had no standing committees. Senators established ad-hoc committees to consider specific bills. In his 1815 message to Congress, President Madison recommended a series of controversial economic measures, including tariff revisions and the creation of a second national bank. The Senate responded by creating the Select Committee on Finance and Uniform National Currency.

In his 1816 message, President Madison recommended a further series of economic measures. This time, the Senate responded by creating the Committee on Finance as a standing committee on December 10, 1816. Under the leadership of Chairman George Campbell, Democrat of Tennessee, the committee's very first task was to consider the Tariff Act of 1816. Other original members of the Finance Committee included Senators Chace of Vermont, Bibb of Georgia, King of New York, and Mason of New Hampshire.

Over the ensuing 188 years, the Finance Committee's jurisdiction has come to include not just tariff legislation, but all legislation related to international trade. Up until 1930, trade policy had been set primarily through Congressional establishment of tariffs, under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. When, however, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 became associated with the Depression, Congress shifted its approach. As the new Roosevelt administration considered proposals to reduce tariffs, Secretary of State Cordell Hull suggested that, instead of reducing tariffs unilaterally, Congress authorize the President to negotiate reciprocal reductions.

When, in 1934, President Roosevelt endorsed this approach and sent it to Congress, the bill was referred to the Finance Committee. The bill was enacted into law as the Trade Act of 1934, establishing the basic model for trade policy ever since. As a result, the committee acquired jurisdiction not only over tariffs, but over a broad range of issues implicated by U.S. trade policy.

Throughout those 188 years, the Finance Committee has retained jurisdiction over the Customs Service. And, like that of the Committee, the mission of Customs has expanded to cover a range of trade issues.

Today, Customs continues to serve a revenue collection function. This year, it will collect nearly $25 billion in import duties, making it the second largest source of government revenue after the income tax.

In today's globalized world, however, Customs has also come to serve a vital role in facilitating trade and, through trade, the nation's economic well-being. For example, in fiscal year 2004, Customs will process approximately 28

million entry summaries, covering imports worth $1.36 trillion. That is more than 56,000 separate merchandise entries every day.

In fiscal year 2003, Customs made 6,500 seizures of goods, worth nearly $1 billion, that were imported in violation of the intellectual property rights of U.S. businesses and individuals.

Customs enforces the U.S. trade remedy laws, collecting $1.5 billion in antidumping and countervailing duties in fiscal year 2004.

In addition, Customs enforces country-of-origin labeling rules, blocks trade in endangered species and conflict diamonds, collects trade data widely relied upon in the government and private sector, fights child pornography, and issues hundreds of classification and valuation rulings every year. Thousands of American businesses and jobs depend on Customs to process imported inputs efficiently, so they can reduce production costs through just-in-time inventory systems.

Over time, Customs has also come to have a national security mission. Customs agents are often the first line of defense at the border. For example, it was a Customs agent who apprehended the so-called ``millennium bomber'' crossing the border from Canada into Washington State in December 1999.

Until recently, Customs was housed within the Department of the Treasury. Treasury was well-suited to oversee both the revenue collection and commercial facilitation functions of Customs, and to ensure that those functions were carried out in a manner calculated to advance the economic growth and well-being of the United States.

After September 11, 2001, however, things changed. We learned that day how important it is to ensure the strongest possible coordination among the many Federal Agencies charged with our domestic security.

In the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Congress moved the Customs Service from the umbrella of the Treasury Department into the new Department of Homeland Security.

The Customs Service, as such, no longer exists as a single entity. Rather, its many functions were divided among two parts of the Border and Transportation Security Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security--Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

When Congress created the Department of Homeland Security, there was widespread concern in the business community that moving Customs from Treasury--an agency whose principal mission is the health of the U.S. economy to a new agency principally concerned with national security would lead to a shift in Customs' focus away from trade facilitation-- with adverse consequences for those businesses and for the economy as a whole.

For some agencies, this problem was solved by splitting the agency apart and moving to DHS only the people directly working on security issues. For example, this is what happened at APHIS. That solution did not work for Customs, because many Customs employees perform both commercial and security functions as part of their jobs.

Instead, Congress made Customs serve two masters. The employees of Customs were physically moved into the Department of Homeland Security. But the commercial functions of Customs remain under the policy control of the Treasury Department. Section 412 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 expressly provides that ``authority related to Customs revenue functions'' that was previously vested in the Secretary of the Treasury ``shall not be transferred'' to the Secretary of Homeland Security.

There was some flexibility built into the law. That way, over time, the Secretary of Treasury could delegate some responsibilities to the Secretary of Homeland Security if experience demonstrated that a particular Customs function was more closely related to security than to trade facilitation.

As a practical matter, the result has been shared authority over Customs by Treasury and Homeland Security. Similarly, in the Senate, the result has been shared oversight by the Finance Committee and the Committee on Government Affairs. One committee focuses on homeland security issues and the other on commercial issues.

In response to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, the Senate is now engaged in a debate over how to reorganize our committee structure to provide stronger, more coherent oversight over issues related to homeland security.

In my view, the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission do not justify any changes in committee oversight jurisdiction of Customs. The Commission has recommended centralizing oversight over homeland security issues in one committee in each House. The clear purpose of that recommendation is to centralize oversight over homeland security functions, not over other functions that happen to be performed by individuals employed by the Department of Homeland Security.

The Grassley-Baucus amendment to S. Res. 445 ensures that the Finance Committee will retain the jurisdiction over the commercial facilitation functions of the Customs Service that the committee has held for nearly 200 years.

Everyone understands that in the post-9/11 world, the United States must vigilantly protect our borders. But while we do so, we must ensure that we do not overburden commerce with other Nations. We must strike a delicate balance between protecting the Nation's borders and promoting the nation's economic health. If we lose that balance, American businesses will suffer. So will our ports, because shippers will find it faster and less expensive to send their cargo through Canadian or Mexican ports.

I believe that granting jurisdiction over the business facilitation functions of the Customs Service to the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs would inevitably lead to commercial considerations being discounted heavily in the name of security. That would hurt the U.S. economy in the long run.

On the other hand, retaining jurisdiction over the revenue and commercial functions of Customs in the Finance Committee in no way detracts from the ability of the new Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee to oversee those functions of Customs that pertain to border security. Separating oversight of these two functions will guarantee that commercial concerns receive a full and fair airing in any debate involving both commerce and security.

So what are the functions over which the Finance Committee would retain jurisdiction under this amendment? Clearly, all the ``revenue functions'' defined in section 415 of the Homeland Security Act are included. These are generally functions that have virtually no security aspects to them--such as collecting tariffs, regulating country of origin labeling, or enforcing antidumping duty orders.

The amendment also preserves Finance Committee jurisdiction over ``any commercial function'' of CBP or ICE, ``including matters related to trade facilitation and trade regulation.''

For example, the Finance Committee would retain jurisdiction over all commercial aspects of the implementation of Customs' new computer system, the Automated Commercial Environment or ACE. ACE was conceived many years ago long before 9/11--as a way to create a paperless environment that reduces paperwork and delays for goods clearing Customs and enhances the efficiency of American businesses that depend on those goods.

ACE has security applications. It can be used to flag entries with suspicious documentation. And the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee can certainly look into those issues. But it is not, and never has been, primarily a security-focused project.

A second example is the issue of container security. Customs is engaged in a program of public-private cooperation with shippers to try to balance security concerns with incoming cargo containers and the economic concerns of shippers. Under this amendment, the Finance Committee would retain jurisdiction over the trade facilitation aspects of Customs' inspection and clearance of cargo containers.

Trade is critical to the health of the America economy. Exports alone accounted for 25 percent of U.S. economic growth between 1990 and 2000. Exports support an estimated 12 million jobs. Imports allow businesses and consumers more choice of goods and inputs and foster America's competitiveness in the global economy.

For these reasons, Congress has a responsibility to ensure that Customs continues to serve the needs of the business and trade community. That can only be achieved by safeguarding a balance between Customs' trade facilitation and homeland security functions. The Grassley-Baucus amendment promotes that balance.

Amendment No. 3995, Withdrawn

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a crisis occurring today in Indian country--and offer a solution. This crisis is not something new. It has been decades in the making. For too long we have neglected to adequately address this issue. This crisis is the condition of Indian jails.

We held a hearing on the Finance Committee this fall to bring attention to the problem. We heard testimony from the Inspector General of the Interior Department, Mr. Earl Devaney. He issued a report that was absolutely shocking. Mr. Devaney said the conditions of Indian jails are comparable to conditions found in third-world countries. He said the jails are a natural disgrace.

There are over seventy Indian jails in America. Almost all of them suffer from the same problems. They are highly understaffed and overpopulated. There are extremely high rates of suicides and escapes. Officers are undertrained or not trained at all. Many of these jails don't even have locking doors. We are talking about jails used to detain criminals and they don't have locking doors. These conditions are unacceptable. They must be fixed. It is our duty to address this problem.

In my home State of Montana, we have eleven Indian jails. They are staffed with hardworking, good people. But they are not miracle workers. They cannot be faulted for the deplorable condition of their jails. Let me give you are example.

On one day in June of 2002, nine of the eleven Montana Indian jails were overpopulated. The Crow Indian jail was 429 percent overcapacity. At the Blackfeet Indian jail, every single detention officer was assaulted last year.

One major reason these jails are in such poor condition is they are terribly underfunded. Tribal officers don't have the money to address the problems. Their hands are tied. We can do something about this. We must provide adequate funding for Indian jails.

Today I offer a proposal to the Senate to give tribes the authority to issue tax credit bonds for the construction, maintenance, and operation of their detention facilities. These bonds give off tax credits rather than interest to their investors, allowing tribes with little resources to earn interest off the proceeds. The bonds will provide a steady stream of income to the Tribal governments.

The legislation will provide money that is so desperately needed to address the problems facing Indian jails. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a crisis occurring today in Indian country--and offer a solution. This crisis is not something new. It has been decades in the making. For too long we have neglected to adequately address this issue. This crisis is the condition of Indian jails.

We held a hearing on the Finance Committee this fall to bring attention to the problem. We heard testimony from the Inspector General of the Interior Department, Mr. Earl Devaney. He issued a report that was absolutely shocking. Mr. Devaney said the conditions of Indian jails are comparable to conditions found in third-world countries. He said the jails are a natural disgrace.

There are over seventy Indian jails in America. Almost all of them suffer from the same problems. They are highly understaffed and overpopulated. There are extremely high rates of suicides and escapes. Officers are undertrained or not trained at all. Many of these jails don't even have locking doors. We are talking about jails used to detain criminals and they don't have locking doors. These conditions are unacceptable. They must be fixed. It is our duty to address this problem.

In my home State of Montana, we have eleven Indian jails. They are staffed with hardworking, good people. But they are not miracle workers. They cannot be faulted for the deplorable condition of their jails. Let me give you are example.

On one day in June of 2002, nine of the eleven Montana Indian jails were overpopulated. The Crow Indian jail was 429 percent overcapacity. At the Blackfeet Indian jail, every single detention officer was assaulted last year.

One major reason these jails are in such poor condition is they are terribly underfunded. Tribal officers don't have the money to address the problems. Their hands are tied. We can do something about this. We must provide adequate funding for Indian jails.

Today I offer a proposal to the Senate to give tribes the authority to issue tax credit bonds for the construction, maintenance, and operation of their detention facilities. These bonds give off tax credits rather than interest to their investors, allowing tribes with little resources to earn interest off the proceeds. The bonds will provide a steady stream of income to the Tribal governments.

The legislation will provide money that is so desperately needed to address the problems facing Indian jails. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this amendment goes to the heart of our debate over the structure and purpose of the U.S. intelligence community. My amendment addresses the allocation of resources at Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC.

Much of our attention has focused on the creation of a new, independent office to oversee our intelligence activities. Often lost in this debate are the details about many of the smaller, lesser known Federal agencies whose efforts are essential to our national security.

Even though many people don't know who they are, OFAC is one of our most powerful weapons in the war on terrorism, because it is charged with tracking down and identifying the international sources of terrorist financing.

Unfortunately, OFAC is also tasked with administration of the Cuba travel ban. As we all know, U.S. policy toward Cuba is a highly emotional and divisive issue. Still, I would doubt that anyone seriously thinks that travel by Americans to Cuba poses a larger or more serious threat to U.S. interests than al-Qaida or the insurgents in Iraq, or Syria, Iran or North Korea.

My colleagues might be surprised and disturbed, then, to learn that-- at the direction of the State Department--OFAC diverts more of its personnel resources to imposition of the Cuba travel ban than to any other country or project-specific issue.

According to their records, the equivalent of 21 full-time OFAC employees are allocated to the Cuba travel ban. On the other hand, only 16 are allocated to the search al-Qaida's financial sources of support.

Less than 15 full-time employee resources are spent on the former Iraq regime and its insurgents, and less than 14 are spent on Iran. Less than 10 are allocated to Syria, Sudan, and Libya combined. Afghanistan doesn't even merit one full-time employee--it receives the attention of roughly 2/3 of one full-time OFAC employee. North Korea only gets \1/3\.

In other words, more OFAC personnel resources are spent on the effort to prevent Americans from vacationing in Cuba than are spent to track down and shut off the sources of funds used by al-Qaida to carry out terrorist activities.

This is an appalling diversion of our resources. If we hope to defeat the disparate threats arrayed against U.S. interests--both here at home and abroad--we must dedicate our attention to the real dangers confronting us around the world. Wisely allocating our resources will better ensure our success.

The amendment I offer addresses this imbalance by requiring an annual report from OFAC on how it allocates its resources and the criteria it uses to make those resource decisions. It also outlines criteria that ought to be considered when prioritizing the threats posed by different countries and groups. Among these criteria are the likelihood that a country or organization is: planning or sponsoring a direct attack on U.S. interests; participating in a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons development program; financing or allowing the financing of terrorists; or providing a safe haven to terrorists.

Colleagues, this is an issue of the highest importance. My amendment simply asks for common sense in the allocation of our limited resources. We cannot expect to win the war on terrorism if we refuse to dedicate our full and focused efforts to fighting it. In this time of crisis, the American people expect us to lead with vision and clarity. My amendment offers this.

I see no credible reason why OFAC should waste precious resources creating bureaucratic red tape for Montana producers who just want to negotiate legal agricultural sales to Cuba. Instead, OFAC should focus its resources where they are more urgently needed: on shutting down the financial networks of al-Qaida and other more serious threats to U.S. interests. That is why the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee supports this amendment, and that is why the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Foreign Trade Council support this amendment.

I take this opportunity to thank Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, the chairwoman and ranking member managing this bill, and their staff, for all of their hard work on the Baucus-Roberts-Craig amendment.

Mr. President, I share the concerns of my colleague. For many U.S. industries, the laws against unfair trade are the last line of defense. American workers and their families should be able to count on the enforcement of U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws to provide a level playing field, and they should be able to rely on the Congress to ensure that those laws are fully enforced. The manner in which agency decisions are affected by NAFTA panel decisions should be closely scrutinized by the Senate.

As my colleague indicated, under the terms of the NAFTA, Chapter 19 panels are supposed to apply the law just as would a U.S. court. They are supposed to be bound by U.S. court precedents in their interpretation of U.S. law. Unfortunately, it has become clear that some of these panels think they do not have to abide by these rules. Again, one of the most blatant examples of this problem involves the ongoing lumber case.

Earlier this year, the same panel that recently ordered the ITC to reverse itself had questioned some of the reasoning of the ITC in its injury decision and sent the case back to the ITC for further explanation. My understanding is that the Federal courts issue such remand orders all the time. Here, however, the panel not only told the ITC to reconsider its decision, but then gave the Commission only 7 business days in which to complete its remand determination, instead of the 60 to 90 days that a court would normally give.

In response to this order from the panel, the Commission requested additional time, and explained that to properly address the panel's concerns, the ITC would have to gather new evidence and request additional comments from the parties to the case, so that all views could be heard. This should have been an easy request for the panel to grant, because just a few months earlier the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had issued an opinion stating plainly that the decision to reopen the record on remand rested exclusively with the ITC. Incredibly, the NAFTA panel ignored this binding court ruling and forbade the Commission to consider new evidence, and again demanded a new determination by the ITC in a mere 7 business days. This is another clear case of overreaching by a NAFTA panel that should not be permitted.

Continued support for free trade initiatives such as NAFTA rests upon the promise of full enforcement of U.S. laws. American industries and workers must be able to rely on the promises made to them by the Congress that unfair trade practices will not be tolerated. When NAFTA panels exceed their authority, confidence is lost not only in the dispute settlement system but in trade agreements generally. We need to inject credibility back into the NAFTA system by reforming Chapter 19.

It is my understanding that this legislation preserves current EDA practices and administration of the Planning Partners Program for economic development districts, as currently authorized under Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965. This is a critical program providing important continual professional and technical assistance to rural and distressed communities to assist in developing economic strategies and implementing infrastructure improvements. It is essential that the legislation maintain this program consistent with current authorization, practices and policies.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to be a part of this effort to improve significant tax relief for America's working families. I very much want to thank my good friend and colleague Chairman Chuck Grassley. As usual, he did a great job in the conference. He conducted an open and transparent conference at all times. He was very decent, very courteous, very fair. Sometimes it was difficult.

Senator Lincoln and I were able to present some amendments and some ideas in an effort to improve the legislation. There was no resistance at all from the chairman. He was, again, gracious, top notch, transparent, very helpful, and I commend him.

I sing the chairman's praises so often he is probably getting used to it, but I was telling everyone what a great job the chairman did last night.

Mr. President, I totally agree. He said it much more directly, as he customarily does. I was a little more oblique and indirect, as I sometimes am. Chuck Grassley is basic good Chuck Grassley representing the State of Iowa in a very thoughtful and great way.

Mr. President, I will say a few words about this bill. First, it provides meaningful tax relief. It will clearly benefit millions of middle-income Americans. It largely is made up of extensions, basically provisions, for which I and many of our colleagues worked hard when Congress enacted them in the first place.

The package we consider today is also far better targeted than the package Congress enacted last year. What we are passing today includes provisions that are very important, more specifically to everyday people, to Montanans and to Minnesotans, to people all across the country.

That is not to say that this legislation, in my judgment, is perfect. It is not. I think it has some quite significant shortcomings, but we are here today and this is a vote on the conference report. It is all or nothing and I frankly believe that the good in this bill significantly outweighs the bad. If I were drafting it, it would be quite a bit different than this legislation. But this is America, this is the legislative process, and it is a step forward and I will urge my colleagues to support it.

The legislation the Senate passed to begin this conference provided refundable child tax credits to low-income working families. That was the original bill. This was a $3 billion to $4 billion problem. Last June, the Senate responded and paid for it. This week, 15 months later, the conference committee produced a $150 billion solution for that $3 billion problem and the conference committee chose not to pay for that $150 billion.

I am concerned. The Congress appears incapable of enacting reasonable tax cuts without adding to the deficit. Higher deficits will hurt the very families whom we have set out to help. They are the ones acutely harmed by higher interest rates that huge deficits cause. It will be the children of middle-income American families, those we are directly helping today, who will pay for that deficit with higher taxes throughout their lifetime. That is the underlying problem with this legislation.

Using this conference on a narrow, $3 billion problem to move a broad $150 billion tax bill is also an abuse of the Senate rules. Rule 28-- and this may be a little bit inside baseball but it is very important to achieve comity and to get legislation passed here--is a rule which may still appear in the printed rule book but the conference report makes clear that for all intents and purposes rule 28 regarding the scope of conference is now dead. The majority plainly observes rule 28 only in the breach.

Let me take a moment to recount the history of this bill. It all started last year when the 2003 tax bill left out additional child tax credit payments for most low-income families with children. Last year's increase in the child tax credit left out fully one-quarter of Montana's children. It must be proportionately true in other parts of the country.

In the weeks that followed passage of that bill, Senators Lincoln and Snowe championed efforts to provide relief for these hard-working families. Today, more than a year too late, we finally followed through on their efforts to provide additional child tax credit relief to those families who were left out. Again, a quarter of the children in my State were left out, and I bet that is about true around the country.

Families who could only get a 10-percent refund can now get a 15- percent refund, as we have accelerated the increased child tax credit in this bill.

The conference agreement makes another significant change benefiting families of military personnel serving in harm's way. Under current law, pay earned by our military in a combat zone does not count for purposes of calculating the earned income tax credit or the child tax credit. That is obviously an imperfection, to say the least, in the law. It is wrong. Our service men and women who are in harm's way should clearly not be discriminated against just because they happen to be fighting a war on our behalf. That is the case in the law and this bill partially but not entirely addresses it. It is the part that it does not fix that I will address later which I have a particular problem with.

Last year, I joined my friend Senator Pryor in requesting a study to detail how this oversight affects our men and women in the military who are serving in some of the most dangerous locations in the world. What did the GAO find? It found that as many as 10,000 military personnel in combat zones will see a reduction or elimination of their child credit or earned-income tax credit. Why? Simply because they are serving abroad, in harm's way. I joined Senator Pryor in introducing legislation which is part of the agreement today essentially to correct that inequity.

Unfortunately, the proposal today will still allow military families with combat pay to receive the earned-income tax credit for only 2 years, and then it goes away. Why? Why should that not be permanent? We tried last night to make it permanent, but unfortunately the conference would not agree.

During conference negotiations--and I take my hat off to Senator Lincoln of Arkansas--Senator Lincoln offered an amendment with my support to make this provision permanent. Again, the conference committee rejected it on a party-line vote. I don't know why the conference committee chose to penalize those military personnel who are serving in Afghanistan, serving in Iraq, in other dangerous parts of the world. We should make sure they are not discriminated against. I do not understand it. It is the least, the very least we could do for them. We should correct this entirely, and we should take care of those soldiers and sailors who are taking care of us.

I think we also all agree on our support for extending tax relief for middle-income taxpayers. That is clear. That is the basic reason I support the bill. The conference report does extend those tax provisions to the end of the decade. Basically there are three popular tax cuts on which many American families have come to rely: the $1,000 child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and the 10-percent income tax bracket.

The conference report also, I might add, extends for another year protection from the heinous alternative minimum tax, otherwise known as AMT. What is it? It is basically the provision in the Code that says after you go

through all your calculations and it turns out that you pay a very low income tax, American taxpayers--corporate taxpayers, too--have to go through another set of calculations that are a bit more onerous. Under the second, if the tax charge is higher than it would be in the regular calculations, they have to pay the higher amount. That is the AMT. It is beginning to kick in, as many Americans are beginning to realize, and it is going to be a much more difficult burden in the next couple or 3 years.

Not next year, however. This bill extends relief from the AMT for next year. Without this, millions of middle-income taxpayers who thought they would be recipients of the benefits of these tax cuts would lose them. Why? Because of the AMT. We give with one hand tax relief in the 10-percent bracket and from the marriage penalty, but it would be taken away with the imposition of the AMT. So we say let's not let AMT do that for another year.

Many of my colleagues also agree with me that we should not borrow to pay for these tax cuts, especially when other more fiscally responsible options are available. What are those? We now have a $300 billion tax gap based on 2001 figures. That is the latest date for which the IRS has made an honest, responsible calculation. What is the tax gap? That is the $311 billion in money that American taxpayers owe. It is due, but they are not paying it--$300 billion. That is the tax gap. It is huge. Just think how much easier it would be for this country to pay its bills, provide for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, homeland security, education, if every American paid his or her legitimate taxes that are owed and due.

The IRS, unfortunately, does not have the personnel to solve this. There are lots of provisions in the law which allow, regrettably, taxpayers to take advantage of the Code. Clearly we should do something about that. I must say, I pressed the IRS in the committee, and I hope we finally get something done in the next couple of years. However, we have passed provisions several times which do address this tax gap. What are they? Anti tax shelter provisions. These are provisions suggested to the committee by the Joint Tax Committee on a bipartisan basis. They say, particularly to corporate taxpayers, if you do certain transactions, itemize these transactions, you have to list them on your return. You have to tell us you are doing these kinds of transactions so they are flagged and the IRS can better look at them.

In addition, we say there should be an economic substance doctrine. That should be enacted. What is that? That is basically the doctrine that says to a judge, if you look at this, if the IRS looks at this and if a taxpayer, corporate taxpayer, is being hypertechnical following the law, but still it is clear there is no economic substance here, the IRS can then find the taxpayer should pay taxes on that transaction.

There are certain Enron related tax provisions that this Senate has also passed. I asked those to be on this bill because they can pay for part of the extension of the middle-income tax cuts. They are good in their own right. These are loophole closers. These are provisions to close corporate loopholes, to somewhat significantly reduce that $300 billion tax gap. Yet that amendment was rejected by the conference committee, and I have no understanding why. I do not know why. I have just been told it can't be done. There is no legitimate reason. I challenged the committee for legitimate reasons. There were none. Yet we in the Congress today are adding to the deficit, we are adding to the debt with the passage of this legislation when we could have been at the same time enacting provisions to close corporate tax loopholes, loopholes that everybody agrees are loopholes. Joint Tax says it is a loophole. All commentators who look at this say it is a loophole. Yet this conference committee would not do something that is clearly the right thing to do.

We should close those loopholes, reduce that tax gap, and reduce the deficit. This conference committee doesn't do that. It says: Oh, no, we should not close corporate loopholes. It says: Oh, no, we should not reduce the deficit. It says: Oh, no. Why? Don't know. There were no reasons given. Clearly, it is the wrong thing to do to not enact the provisions. I suggested that have already passed this Senate. They have already passed this Senate by a large margin, and still the conference says: No, we are not going to close corporate loopholes. That is wrong.

I might add a further part of what I believe is good about this conference report. There is a simplification provision here that does simplify provisions of the Code. I don't have to tell you just how complicated the Code is. We all know. How does it simplify the Code? I will give one idea. It creates a uniform definition of a child in the Code. Today there are five separate definitions of a child in the Tax Code. They are all different. It just makes eminent sense that there will be one provision.

It is a start. I am not standing here to say that we have significantly simplified the Tax Code. We are making a start here with a single, uniform definition of a child. If we could take a step forward, even--no pun intended; maybe a ``minor'' pun--even if it is a baby step forward, certainly we should take it.

Another provision here, we also were able to continue certain provisions of the Tax Code which would otherwise expire. In the parlance here, they are called extenders. But for those who don't know what extenders are who may be listening, there are certain provisions in the Code which would expire, and most people agree they should not expire. So we say, OK, we are going to continue them. One of the most popular is the R&D tax credit. Frankly, it is foolish to extend that. I think it should be permanent. We should not be back year after year revisiting this issue. It is nuts. It is ridiculous.

I also offered an amendment for a more expanded, a more realistic, a more honest research and development tax credit. What is that? Basically the provision we are extending is dated. It is based on data from 10 or 15 years ago. So companies today which have increased revenues but, say, 10 or 15 years ago were at a certain level of R&D expenditures now can't get the benefit of the R&D tax credit even if their sales are going up because their credit is based on the R&D they performed many years earlier.

I am saying let's bring it up today so American companies can perform the research and invest in the research we need to do to compete with countries around the world. It could be a modest increase in this bill. It is very small--I think it is about $1 billion--not much at all, over 10 years, but that, too, was rejected for basically no reason. I didn't hear a reason. We have an obligation to start and continue to make America even more competitive. So many other countries give such a break to their companies for research and development in their own countries.

Canada, for example, has a 20-percent credit. Other countries have much more than we have. We are just kind of sitting here as a Congress and not really getting off the dime, getting off the ball to address this issue. I am sorry that was not added in the conference report.

Finally, the conference report does take what are called the technical corrections. Those are a long-overdue set of provisions. They are what they are described to be, dotting the i's and crossing the t's to correct minor mistakes, to simplify the Code by enacting corrections.

Finally, I want to say I support the bill. It will make life better for millions of hard-working American families. That is the bottom line. But, also, I might add it continues to ignore our continuing and dire budget deficit. We may turn a blind eye to that problem today, but that deficit is going to haunt us in years to come. Mark my words.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill. But I also strongly urge my colleagues to renew our resolve to address the budget failure that threatens our Nation. That is a challenge we can no longer simply avoid.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before I yield to my very good friend from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln, I would like to tell the Senate and those listening what a great job she has done, particularly in standing up for our military personnel overseas who have children and who are working men and women but whose incomes might not be as high as some others.

She is a tiger. She is a stalwart. She is there. And because of her efforts, this bill is a lot further along in a way that does help military personnel, maybe not as much as we would like yet, but she is to be highly commended for her work.

Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. President, I would like to yield to the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Pryor. He is a real leader in protecting our Armed Services personnel. In fact, it was he who asked for a GAO report a year or two ago that would highlight and identify the problem which has led to some constructive provisions in this bill. It is a great honor to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. President, this legislation would not have been possible without the help of many.

I appreciate the cooperation we received from the Republican staff, especially Kolan Davis, Mark Prater, Dean Zerbe, Ed McClellan, Elizabeth Paris, Christy Mistr, John O'Neill and Adam Freed.

I thank the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation for their service.

I also thank my staff for their tireless effort and dedication, including Russ Sullivan, Patrick Heck, Bill Dauster, Matt Stokes, Matt Jones, Melissa Mueller, Matt Genasci, Anita Horn Rizek, Judy Miller, Jonathan Selib, Ryan Abraham and Wendy Carey. I also thank our dedicated fellows, Cuong Huynh, Scott Landes and Jeremy Sylestine.

Finally, I thank our hardworking interns: Kelsie Eggensperger, Paige Lester, Priya Mahanti, Brittney McClary, Audrey Schultz and Mary Tuckerman.

Mr. President, the real thanks here, frankly, goes to a lot of Montanans who I have consulted with on this bill, CPAs and tax practitioners with whom I have been talking, acting as a sounding board as to which provisions should be changed, for example, to make them work better. They have been invaluable assistants to me. I am very appreciative to know I can just pick up the phone and ask, What do you think of this? What do you think of that? Montana business men and women, other taxpayers and practitioners, I very much thank them for their great help.

Real thanks really to the working men and women in my State and across the Nation. It is through their work and determination that our Nation has prospered. Of course, the group includes the wonderful men and women who serve in the military because they are the people who put their lives on the line. I am very grateful to them and am very humbled to be working for them.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays on the conference report.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the privileges of the floor be granted to the following fellows and interns of the Finance Committee for the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 1308, the Increased Child Tax Credit bill: Mary Tuckerman, Priya Mahanti, Audrey Schultz, Brittney McClary, Kelsie Eggensperger, Paige Lester, Jeremy Sylestine, Jodi George, Scott Landes, and Matt Stokes.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3630

Mr. President, I rise to speak on an issue that is vitally important. If there are any pending amendments, I ask unanimous consent that they be set aside.

I call up amendment No. 3636.

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

Mr. President, this is a bipartisan amendment. My colleague from Montanam Mr. Burns, is a cosponsor of the amendment, along with Senators Roberts, Brownback, Hagel, Conrad, Dorgan, and Nelson from Nebraska. Maybe there will be more later.

This amendment provides for emergency agricultural natural disaster assistance. Some might ask why I am offering this amendment, particularly on this bill. The answer is very simple. First of all, there is a tremendous need, a need in rural America to address drought agricultural disaster assistance. Just as there is a need in Florida because of the two hurricanes which have devastated that State, and a third potentially on its way, for agricultural disaster assistance, agricultural disasters from droughts in many parts of America are just as devastating. We don't hear about them as much because it is in the nature of a silent killer. They don't get on TV as much. It is over a period of time, for years. But the effect is just the same, if not worse, in many parts of our country.

We are in America. We are an entire country. Just above the Presiding Officer is our national motto, ``e pluribus unum.'' Clearly, this is something of which we should all be reminded. We are many States, but we are one Nation, here to help each other--one indeed.

Our amendment would fully fund the Crop Disaster Program, the Livestock Assistance Program, and the American Indian Livestock Feed Program for losses incurred in 2003 or 2004. The producer would have the option of deciding which of the 2 years he or she needs the assistance.

I might point out that in 1996, the year before the major years of drought began, Montana sold $847 billion worth of wheat. Just a couple years ago, we sold only $366 million. That is a 43-percent decline. Why? Essentially because of drought.

This devastation does not end at the front door of our rural homes. It is unrelenting and has taken an enormous economic toll on our communities as well as our farmers. It will take years to recover. Businesses are closing doors. Employees are being layed off in many parts of rural America as a consequence, and main streets are just drying up. Producers are considering selling parcels of land they own or pieces of equipment that they have in order to keep their operation going. They will do so only if they can keep the farm or the ranch that their family has been working on for, in many cases, generations, and scraping that money together has never been more difficult as most of the potential buyers are similarly in financial straits.

So we are drying up in many parts of the country. It is all patchwork. It is not uniform. There are certain parts of the drought that even in certain parts of my State of Montana, you can tell from this map which indicates it is very dry. Some parts are more drought stricken than others. This bill is tailored to give help to those producers who are experiencing drought, who have a disaster, very little of their crop is left, and they would be compensated for only a portion of the loss. We have to act now.

Some will say: Put this off to another bill. This is the Homeland Security bill. This is not an agricultural disaster assistance bill.

That is a technical argument. The unanimous consent request states, and I will point it out to my colleagues, that first-degree amendments to this bill are in order related to the text of homeland security and natural disasters. This is a natural disaster amendment.

This bill clearly contemplates amendments that address assistance to parts of the country that are experiencing natural disasters. You might hear, gee whiz, after all, we should wait until an agriculture bill comes up. We cannot do that. We know there are 3 weeks left before we are scheduled to adjourn. There is no time to wait. We know the big disaster bill comes up for Florida, and we know the pressure here for that to be a clean bill--don't add anything to it because it so accurately portrays the devastation in Florida, and there is going to be a rush to adjourn and they don't want any amendments, and that will happen.

We are going to hear the argument to put it off until the supplemental or another bill. Well, you have to strike while the iron is hot here. You need to take advantage of your opportunities. This is needed now, not weeks from now. It is needed right now. Frankly, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. If we don't act now, we jeopardize assistance that farmers deserve, as well as the folks in Florida.

I point out that we see hurricanes and tornadoes and ice storms and floods in the news; newspapers and television cover that. Those folks deserve help and we will give them help before we adjourn.

We must also remember that an agricultural disaster such as drought is more of a silent killer; it is not as visible on TV screens, but the effect is just as bad, if not worse.

You are going to hear, why doesn't the farm bill take care of all this? We know it is important to remind ourselves that disaster assistance is completely separate from funding in the farm bill. It is a totally different animal, a different phenomenon.

The argument is also made that farmers and ranchers should be satisfied with the funding they will receive in the farm bill. The truth is, only 18 percent of the total funding in the farm bill goes directly to producers. The rest goes to food stamps, nutrition programs, et cetera. The farm bill is never intended to cover losses from natural disasters; it is economic losses, not natural disasters, as this amendment so provides.

In the same way we use emergency funds to rebuild communities hurt by tornadoes and hurricanes, we should rebuild communities hurt by drought. We should not treat natural disasters differently and just pay attention to the ones that make the evening news. A disaster is a disaster. There is no reason a double standard should apply. We must not and cannot continue to ignore the impact of drought, the effect it has on our agricultural producers,

and our rural communities. It is every bit as deserving of assistance.

I repeat that it is just as important as small business owners in Florida or anybody else. Florida needs assistance and we will give them that. Those folks are hurting. But I might also say that parts of rural America need assistance and we should give them assistance because they are hurting just as much in some cases, if not worse.

I will end there, just by saying this is bipartisan. We have just as many Republican cosponsors as Democratic cosponsors. It is not a political issue. This is meant to help people who really need help.

With that, I yield the floor and urge my colleagues to take a good long hard look at this and not be--I am trying to use another word-- deceived by arguments that say this is just a Homeland Security bill. That is a technicality. The unanimous consent provides for natural disaster amendments to this bill. Second, there is no time to wait. That is why we are here. That is why we are elected, to do what is right.

Somebody, who was wise, said to me: When you are going to do something, do it now, don't wait. Second, do it right the first time. Don't do it wrong the first time.

I think if we are going to do it, we should do it now, do it right the first time; and the right way is a basic, simple amendment. We are not trying to take advantage of somebody or pad anybody's pockets. It is to help people who need help.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I would like to read a list of supporters of the pending amendment which provides for emergency agricultural disaster assistance: the Alabama Farmers Federation, American Corn Growers Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, Georgia Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, Georgia Peanut Commission, National Association of Farmer Elected Committees, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Barley Growers Association, National Cotton Council, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Farmers Union, National Grain Sorghum Producers, National Milk Producers Federation, National Potato Council, National Sunflower Association, Southern Peanut Farmers Federation, U.S. Canola Association, USA Dry Pea & Lentil Council, USA Rice Federation, and Women Involved in Farm Economics.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, if consent is necessary, to add as cosponsors to the pending amendment Senator Coleman of Minnesota, Senator Dayton of Minnesota, and Senator Clinton of New York.

Mr. President, I think the growing support indicates we should adopt this amendment. There may be a point of order raised. It would be a technicality. I hope if that is raised, Senators will vote to waive that point of order so we can help some people in America, farmers and ranchers in various States all around our country, who have suffered from drought disasters or, as in the case in North Dakota--it is very interesting--from flood disaster.

It was very sad listening to Senator Conrad speak about North Dakota, how part of the State has been devastated by flooding, with 18 inches of rain in 1 day, if you can believe it. The average annual rainfall in the upper plains States is about 14 inches a year. They had 18 inches in 1 day. That is in one part of North Dakota. In another part of North Dakota, they have had the worst drought he has said he has seen in his lifetime.

I might say, the condition is somewhat similar to that in Montana. Northeast Montana is getting a little more moisture than it usually gets, but southwest Montana is getting a lot less than it normally gets. It is hard to know where we are going to get drought and where we are not. But there is drought.

We are asking to use the formulas that are in the law; that is, the Emergency Livestock Feed Program and the Crop Disaster Assistance Program. Let's use the formulas in the law. If they need disaster assistance, we should give it to them.

In addition, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Murray as a cosponsor of the amendment.

The more I speak, the more I am getting cosponsors. I ought to keep talking. They are coming in at a rate of about four a minute.

With that, I urge Senators to support this legislation.

trees

I thank the Senator from New York for her support of the amendment, and I assure her that the Tree Assistance Program provision in my amendment is intended to cover eligible losses of trees, bushes and vines.

Mr. President, very briefly, I heard two arguments from one Senator as to why this pending amendment, agricultural disaster assistance, should not pass. It is a very technical argument that it violates the Budget Act.

I remind my colleagues, the unanimous consent agreement that applies to this bill, to this amendment basically says first-degree amendments are in order: First-degree amendments are in order, that they be related to the text of the bill, homeland security, and also natural disasters.

This is a natural disaster amendment. It clearly is contemplated by the unanimous consent agreement. The argument was made: Not on this bill. That is clearly not an argument because the unanimous consent agreement clearly contemplates amendments that relate to natural disasters. So that argument is gone. That is wrong.

The second argument was made: Gee, the cost violates the Budget Act. A very simple point I make is if one wants to press that argument, it also applies to disaster assistance for the State of Florida.

Agricultural disaster assistance is the same as Florida hurricane disaster assistance under the Budget Act. They are the same. They are technically the same. There can be a point of order made against both. Sixty votes are required. I do not know whether the other side is going to make a point of order against the Florida hurricane disaster assistance. I frankly doubt it. I think it would be very unwise. The very same law, the Budget Act, applies to the pending amendment, which is the amendment providing for agricultural disaster assistance.

I say to my colleagues, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We are Americans, and let's work together as Americans. Let's help people who need help, and those are our farmers, ranchers, and Floridians because of the hurricanes--all of us. I see no reason why a point of order should be made. And, second, if it is made, I see no reason why the point of order should be sustained. We are talking again about natural disasters that apply--this amendment does not apply to Florida, but it is tied with it because we are going to have that in the next several days. They are all the same. We are all in the same boat.

I very much hope this does not become a partisan political measure. I do not think it is. I remind my colleagues of the bipartisan support of this amendment. Senator Brownback of Kansas is a cosponsor. Senator Burns, my colleague from Montana, is a cosponsor of this amendment. Senator Coleman from Minnesota told me an hour ago he wants to be a cosponsor of this amendment. Senator Roberts of Kansas is a cosponsor of this amendment. Senator Hagel of Nebraska is also a cosponsor of this amendment. I hope Senators can all work together. Let's help each other. Let us help people in various parts of our country, not only in Florida, but in other parts of America who are hurt very much by agricultural disasters.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I do not know what the chairman has in mind, but I hope whatever it is we can move rather quickly.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3607

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3617

Mr. President, this is quite an important amendment for our Nation's security. I think it will help strengthen a key component of our national security strategy. We all know our Nation's security begins here at home, by securing our land borders, our airspace, and also our maritime ports. As we work to get the latest explosive screening technology in our airports, or to inspect more containers arriving in our Nation's ports, we should not forget the critical role of our vast northern border.

Contrary to what some people may think, out on the northern border we are no strangers to illegal crossings. The topography in my State of Montana makes it very difficult to protect our border. Customs and Border Patrol are doing a great job with the resources they have, but Immigration and Customs enforcement investigators are just a little bit undermanned. They share valuable information they collect on illegal entries with numerous agencies.

But when it comes to tracking and intercepting unauthorized aircraft, our military planes fly much too high and too fast to provide proper service along our northern border. As we beef up our security on other borders, especially in the South and on the coasts, the northern border has become the Nation's backdoor that we cannot afford to leave unlocked.

While I am pleased the Department of Homeland Security has just established the first of five planned airbases along the northern border that Congress authorized nearly 2 years ago, I am also quite concerned. Why? Because the pace is so slow in standing up these bases. One of the sites the Department of Homeland Security has chosen is in Great Falls, MT. Between Malmstrom Air Force Base, the Air Force National Guard at Great Falls International Airport, and the community that supports these assets, we are ready to take on this new mission. We are ready. We are set. We are happy. We are glad. We want to do it. The mission is to help secure the northern border, not just for our State of Montana but for all Americans.

However, we are told we will have to wait. We will have to wait for more than 3 years to get the planned airbase up and running in Great Falls. With all due respect, I do not think as a nation we can wait. We cannot afford to wait.

There are too many problems with the current funding schedule for the northern border air wing. First, the schedule is stretched out over far too long a period of several years. Once the first base in Bellingham, WA, is really up and running, what is going to happen? It is pretty obvious. Drug runners and other would-be terrorists and malcontents will simply move eastward toward Montana's northern border, and still further east over other parts of our northern border.

Under the current funding schedule, they are going to enjoy a full 3 years of exploiting the gaps in our Air Wing coverage before all five bases along the northern border--that is, the States of Washington, Montana, North Dakota, Michigan, and New York--have been established.

There is a second problem. What is that? It is that the budget allows just enough money to buy each base its requisite planes: two helicopters and a fixed-wing aircraft. But once each base opens its doors, it won't even be able to operate 5 days a week for 8 hours a day. The dollars just are not there for the operation. So I say, when it comes to securing our Nation, obviously, this is not good enough. We have to get up and running right away.

Two months ago, when a plane deviated from its course over Washington, DC--we all remember it--the Air and Marine Operations Command and Control at March Air Force Base in Riverside, CA, was watching--way out in California. Local aircraft were dispatched, and the Capitol complex was emptied. Luckily, it was just the Governor of Kentucky. I should not say ``just.'' It was the eminent Governor of Kentucky. But the system worked because a local plane was available and staffed to respond. The folks in Riverside are responsible for detecting unauthorized aircraft flying at low altitudes anywhere in the United States, but so far they have just one plane, staffed barely 40 hours a week, in Washington State, to dispatch if they get a hit anywhere on the 3,000-plus-mile-long northern border.

So let's be clear. Congress has already authorized the establishment of a northern border air wing with five airbases that will be responsible for tracking, identifying, and intercepting any unauthorized aircraft that attempts to cross the northern border into U.S. airspace. But if we are going to take securing the northern border seriously, then we must take funding seriously. So my amendment makes sure the funding is there to get all five airbases operational 7 days a week this next year.

I thank very much the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Cochran, and thank Senator Byrd, and many others, for helping to work to get this crucial amendment in order so it will be adopted and, more importantly, to make America safer.

I yield the floor.