Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to support the conference report accompanying H.R. 2691, the Interior Appropriations bill of 2004, because of the $2.5 billion for firefighting, $400 million to pay back Federal agencies for fire costs in 2003, and $50 million included for important Montana projects.

These important funds will help care for Montana's public lands, parks and wildlife and they will help boost our state's economy.

This bill also provides a good step towards establishing a permanent firefighting fund so Federal agencies don't have to borrow from other accounts to pay for firefighting costs, which halts important restoration and salvage projects.

This fire season alone the Forest Service was forced to take $695 million from other accounts, the Department of the Interior $165 million, to fight fires after the agencies' firefighting budgets dried up for fiscal year 2003.

I must support this conference report to ensure that Montana lands are conserved for future generations and protected from unnecessarily high fire threats.

However, my support for this bill is not without reservation. The historical accounting language included in this conference report essentially states that the Department of Interior may not comply with Judge Lamberth's order without consequence for one year.

I am not happy about how this came about though. Riders--especially on an issue this important--are no way to legislate. Indian trust accounting must be resolved in a collaborative way, in the light of day where all parties can come to the table. Eight years ago, Eloise Cobell started her battle to champion the cause for accountability of Indian Trust monies. Ultimately she won when Federal District Court ruled that the United States government had breached its trust obligations to hundreds of thousands of American Indians and that the government should be compelled to provide a comprehensive historical accounting. While indeed the cost of the accounting is expensive, it is crucial to balance the cost with due respect for the District Court order. This rider now attempts to modify the court order Eloise Cobell fought so hard to win. Legislating away the district court decision may only invite further litigation. Hopefully, there will be a meaningful settlement in the interim.

I am committed to working together to get this resolved. And in the coming days and weeks, I will be doing all I can to ensure Montana tribes are at the table as these talks continue.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of this amendment to the Fallen Patriots Tax Benefit Act of 2003. The bill that we received from the House includes two important provisions that the Senate has already approved this year. However, it does not include the numerous other provisions that the Senate has passed to ensure equity for military personnel. This amendment would add these important provisions.

First, the House bill doubles the amount of the death gratuity payments for members of our military. Under current law, the families of military personnel receive a death gratuity benefit of $6,000. This bill would increase that amount to $12,000. The Senate included this provision in the defense authorization bill that is currently in conference.

Second, the House bill ensures that these payments will not be subject to taxation. Under current law, death gratuity benefits are excludable from income only to the extent they were as of September 9, 1986, which was $3,000.

In 1991, the benefit was increased to $6,000, but the Tax Code was never adjusted to exclude the additional $3,000 from income. Because of this oversight, the U.S. Government has been taxing families for the death of a family member who died in combat.

The House bill would make the entire $12,000 death gratuity benefit tax-free, and ensure that families are not hit with a tax bill during their most difficult hour. This provision was included in the Senate passed Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act.

That is what this bill does. Now let me talk about what the House bill does not do.

This bill does not include the numerous other provisions for military personnel that were included in the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2003, which was passed by the Senate in May. These provisions are vital to ensuring tax equity for our active duty military and reservists.

Let me explain these provisions.

First, the House bill does not include the exclusion of gain on the sale of a principal residence.

In 1997, Congress passed legislation revising the taxation of capital gains on the sale of a person's principal residence.

The new law provides that up to $250,000--or $500,000 for a married couple--is excluded on the sale of a principal residence if the individual has lived in the house for at least 2 of the previous 5 years.

However, when enacted, Congress failed to provide a special rule for military and Foreign Service personnel who are required to move either within the U.S. or abroad.

Our proposal in the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act would permit service personnel and members of the Foreign Service to suspend the 5- year period while away on assignment. That means that those years would not count toward either the 2 years or the 5-year periods. Senators McCain, Graham, and Lincoln proposed a bill in the last session to correct this.

Second, the House bill does not allow for the exclusion from taxable income of amounts received under the Military Housing Assistance Program. The Department of Defense provides payments to members of the Armed Services to offset diminution in housing values due to military base realignment or closure.

For example, if a house near a base was worth $140,000 prior to the base closure and $100,000 after the base closure, DOD may provide the owner with a payment to offset some, but not all, of the $40,000 diminution in value. Under current law, those amounts are taxable as compensation.

We should ensure that those men and women losing value in their homes due to a Federal Government decision are not adversely affected financially.

The proposal in the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act would provide that payments for this type of lost value are not includible into income.

Third, the House bill does not expand the combat zone filing rules to include contingency operations. Under current law, military personnel in a combat zone are afforded an extended period for filing tax returns.

However, this does not apply to contingency operations. This proposal in the Armed Forces Taxes Fairness Act would extend the same benefits to military personnel assigned to contingency operations.

It cannot be easy trying to figure out our complicated tax system while you are overseas and protecting our nation's freedom. Those men and women who are sent to uphold democracy and freedom in other countries are confronted with the same filing complications as combat zone personnel.

Contingency operations are just as demanding as combat zone deployment, although not always in the same manner. For example, in our current war on terrorism, this proposal would help members of our Special Forces in the Philippines supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. These troops are just as focused on accomplishing their critical mission as our troops in the Iraqi combat zone.

Fourth, the House bill does not provide an above-the-line deduction for overnight travel expenses of National Guard and Reserve members. Some reservists who travel one weekend per month and two weeks in the summer for Reserve duty incur significant travel and lodging expenses.

For the most part, these expenses are not reimbursed. Under current law, these are deductible as itemized deductions but must exceed 2 percent of adjusted gross income.

For lower income reservists, this deduction does not provide a benefit, because they do not itemize. For higher income reservists, the 2 percent floor limits the amount of the benefit of the deductions.

In my home State of Montana, we have approximately 3,500 reservists-- 800 of whom travel each month across the State for their training. These 800 reservists pay travel and lodging expenses out of their own pocket.

Montana ranks 48th in the Nation for per capita personal income. So that $200 expense for Reserve duty every month means a lot to the Montana reservist. Yet, they continue selflessly to provide their services to our country at their own expense. For those reservists who travel out of State for their training, this expense is even higher.

The proposal in the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act would provide an above the line deduction for overnight travel costs and would be available for all reservists and members of the National Guard.

Fifth, the House bill does not expand the rules to qualify for membership of veterans organizations. Currently, qualified veterans organizations under section 501(c)(19) of the tax code both tax-exempt and contributions to the organization are tax deductible.

In order to qualify under 501(c)(19), the organization must meet several tests. For example, 75 percent of the members must be current or former military, and substantially all of the other members must be either spouses, widows, or widowers of current or former military.

The proposal in the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act would permit lineal descendants and ancestors to qualify as eligible members of these important groups.

It is important that our veterans organizations continue the good work that they do. But, as the organizations age, they are in danger of losing tax-exempt status. The Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act helps ensure the vitality of these organizations.

Sixth, the House bill does not clarify the tax treatment of childcare subsidies. I want to ensure that parents in the military can continue their dedicated service with the knowledge that their children are well taken care of.

The military provides extensive childcare benefits to its employees. Employees at DoD-owned facilities provide childcare services while other areas with non-DoD owned facilities contract out their childcare.

When Congress passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986, we included a provision stating that qualified military benefits are excluded from income. It is not absolutely clear whether childcare provisions are covered under this provision.

The proposal in the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act would clarify that any childcare benefit provided to military personnel would be excludable from income.

Seventh, the House bill does not allow students at the Service Academies to use their education savings account funds. In contrast, the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act does permit penalty-free withdrawals from education savings accounts and qualified tuition programs made on account of the attendance of the account holder or beneficiary at any of the Service Academies. The amount of the funds that can be withdrawn penalty-free is limited to the costs of advanced education in that calendar year.

Eighth, the House does not allow the IRS to suspend the tax-exempt status of terrorist organizations. Under current law, there is no procedure for the IRS to suspend the tax-exempt status of an organization.

The Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act would allow the suspension of the tax-exempt status of an organization for any period during which the organization is designated or identified by Executive Order as a terrorist organization.

Ninth, the House bill does not provide tax relief for families of those killed in the Space Shuttle Columbia. Current law provides for income tax, estate tax, and death benefit relief to soldiers who are killed in a combat zone, victims of the September 11 attacks, the Oklahoma City bombing victims, and the victims of the anthrax attacks.

The crew of the Space Shuttle Columbia was heroic in every sense of the word. We have a duty to those who lost their lives for the advancement of science and increasing our knowledge of the world we live in. The Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act would make all of the above benefits available to the families of the Columbia crew.

The tenth and final difference between the House bill before us and the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act is that the bill before us is not offset. In contrast, the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act is completely offset by strengthening the collection of taxes from people who have renounced their U.S. citizenship in order to avoid U.S. taxes.

However, some of our colleagues in the House have objected to this provision. So in the interest of enacting these important military tax provisions as quickly as possible, the Senate changed the offset to a simple extension of the present law customs user fees.

The Senate amendment to the House bill would add these very important nine provisions. In addition, it would add an offset that the House has not opposed this offset in the past. We hope that this compromise on our part will allow them to pass the provisions from the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act that we have included in this amendment.

The passage of the death gratuity payments provision is an important first step. However, there are thousands of men and women in uniform that are depending on us to pass the other ten provisions included in the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act.

Simply put, there is absolutely no excuse if Congress fails to pass the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act this year.

Everyday, our military men and women fight for our freedom and the freedom of every American. Their sacrifices are great. Passing the other ten provisions included in the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act is not a lot for them to ask of Congress.

I urge my colleagues in the House to pass the Senate amendment to the Fallen Patriots Act of 2003.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to explain why I had to oppose the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act.

First, let me say that my vote does not reflect a change my belief that global climate change is a serious problem, perhaps one of the most serious long-term environmental and public health problems facing the world over the next century. I am deeply disappointed that this administration has decided not to actively engage the world on this issue and has in fact disengaged itself from the world on global climate change. I echo the concerns of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, that the administration's approach is short-sighted, and that it is no longer constructive to argue that human-caused emissions are not contributing to the warming of the earth. The science is just too strong to believe otherwise.

The administration's approach is frustrating because engaging the world particularly the developing world--is the only way we will ever get a handle on rising greenhouse gas emissions. Small reductions in emissions made by the U.S. will be meaningless if those reductions are made unilaterally. We must have assurances that the world is moving hand in hand with us--and is making similar sacrifices--before we handicap our own economy.

This will take time, but solving the problem of global warming is a life-time endeavor by any estimate, for our generation, and the next. Part of this effort will include massive investments in new energy technologies, in renewables, in alternative energy, in hybrid cars and fuel cells, and in making our economy and the world's economy more energy efficient. It will likely, if and when the United States takes the leadership roll on this issue that it should, involve mandatory greenhouse gas reductions by all nations.

I would like to compliment Senators McCain and Lieberman for working so hard on this proposal, and for attempting to find a balanced solution. If we had more time, and more attention from the administration, I am confident that we could work together on a common sense bill that would achieve meaningful reductions in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions without threatening the U.S. economy or our global competitiveness. Such a bill would hopefully complement a meaningful and real global consensus on how to address human-caused climate change.

I voted against McCain-Lieberman today because I don't think the country is ready to take the steps outlined in their bill and because I was concerned about the impacts on my state, particularly agriculture, from increased natural gas prices. But I agree that we must move forward aggressively to put the United States and the world on track to significantly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. It will only get harder the longer we continue to ignore the problem.

Mr. President, first, I thank my friend, the Senator from Nevada, and the managers of the bill for their accommodation.

It is vital that we pass this legislation this year.

Montana recently suffered from devastating wildfires, as have other western States. As the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein pointed out repeatedly, the current news from Southern California is a painful reminder of a very large problem.

Across this country forests are threatened by insects, disease and the build up of hazardous fuels. The impacts of these conditions are real. And they play out year after year, fueling large fires that destroy lives and homes, diminish water and air quality, and destroy wildlilfe habitat.

The cost of containing these large fires is staggering, straining State and Federal budgets and devastating local economies.

There are many reasons for the situation we are in today, ranging from weather and natural cycles to urban sprawl and the fire suppression policies of the past.

We can't do anything to change the weather and we certainly can't change the past, but we can use today's knowledge and the wisdom of our experience to do better.

Neglecting the problem is not the answer; nor is more talk. We have to try a new approach. The compromise healthy forests bill is not perfect, but I believe it offers options to more efficiently address our forest health problems and the consequences they have on real people. I also believe this bill will help put people in rural communities back to work in the woods, especially in my State of Montana.

I have said over and over again that a healthy forests bill must first allow federal agencies and communities to address dangerous fuel loadings on a local level, quickly and efficiently. Second, it must support small, independent mills and put local people to work in the forests and the mills. Third, it must promote and protect citizen involvement and be fair to the principles underlying the federal judicial system. And finally, it must protect and help restore special and sensitive places like wilderness areas.

I think we have achieved that with this legislation.

People impacted by forest health problems don't belong to just one political party.

This is a problem that requires all sides to work together. I would like to commend the tremendous efforts of my Democratic and Republican colleagues, including Senators Feinstein, Wyden, Cochran, Craig, Crapo, McCain and Lincoln, who along with several other Senators and myself worked very had to put together the compromise on healthy forests that I am proud to support and co-sponsor.

This was no small feat; this bill touches on some very divisive issues that I wasn't sure we would ever find a way to solve. But, we did and that is why we are here today having a serious conversation about actually passing a bill.

I believe the compromise healthy forest bill is responsive to our need to more efficiently reduce the threat of wildfire while ensuring adequate environmental protections, citizen participation, and an independent judiciary.

There is nothing in this legislation that undermines existing environmental laws, or a person's ability to be involved in decisions that impact their public lands. In fact, this legislation requires citizen collaboration beyond existing law--current law does not require the secretary to encourage citizen collaboration or to hold a public meeting on proposed projects.

What I believe this legislation does do is help keep the process open and honest. I ask unanimous consent that an article for today's Missoulian newspaper, from Missoula, MT, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Senator McCain and I intended to offer an amendment to H.R. 1904 to establish a permanent revolving fund to address the annual problem of funding emergency fire suppression needs--a problem that essentially robs funds from the very fuel reduction projects H.R. 1904 is designed to promote.

When I was in Montana this summer, I visited with some of the firefighting teams near Glacier National Park. It was absolutely amazing to see the organization and coordination that goes into fighting these fires. We had folks from Federal, State, and local agencies and local volunteer fire departments; local loggers; teams from Australia and New Zealand; and private contractors all working together to protect lives and property.

I can't tell you how impressed and overwhelmed I was by the dedication and professionalism of the firefighters on the ground. These first-rate men and women earned the deep respect and gratitude of the residents of many Montana cities and towns, particularly in West Glacier. I know that my colleagues saw much the same thing in their states, and we are all seeing it now in California.

But, this extraordinary and superior fire-fighting effort costs money--$305 million spent in Montana alone this year to fight the fires that blanketed my state. And as is too often the case, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management were once again strapped for fire suppression funds during extreme fire conditions. They had to borrow from other program funds to get the job done in Montana and other states this summer.

The Forest Service and Department of Interior borrowed $860 million last fiscal year to pay fire suppression costs. While recent supplemental funding for the agencies will repay some of these accounts, the agencies will still be short $170 million. Some Forest Service accounts will not be repaid, including accounts to rehabilitate burned areas. This is enormously counterproductive. And, it wastes scarce federal resources. This state of affairs cannot continue.

We have to be smarter about managing this situation in the future. Since we can't accurately predict wildfire suppression needs each year when we provide for appropriations, we need a special funding strategy to account for extreme fire years. The alternative is extreme disruption to Forest Service and Interior budgets and day-to-day responsibilities, important work deferred or canceled, and jobs lost.

Senator McCain and I believe we have a responsible solution that is a fair, reasoned, and balanced approach to the problem. It's time we all faced up to our responsibilities to provide adequate and stable funding to the Forest Service and Interior for fire suppression efforts, while ensuring minimal disruption to their current programs and projects and encouraging these agencies to keep their costs under control.

However, Senator McCain and I will not offer our amendment because Senator Craig and others have agreed to work with us, and with Senator Bingaman, to find a solution to this problem as soon as possible. I would like to see H.R. 1904 pass quickly, and I have no interest in delay. I appreciate Senator Craig's recognition of the problem and commitment to address it.

I thank all of my colleagues for their commitment to this issue.

Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue of great concern to me--the ban on travel to Cuba.

Last week, the Senate scored an important victory in the fight to bring common sense to U.S. policy toward Cuba. We voted by a wide margin--59 to 36--to suspend enforcement of the travel ban. The House approved the same amendment in September, also by a wide margin.

The wide margin of victory reflects the majority of Americans who want an end to the travel ban.

Over the weekend, editorial writers from a diverse range of newspapers noted and applauded our victory: the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Orlando Sentinel- Tribune.

Let me offer just a few quotes: the Chicago Tribune says:

In an age of very real terrorist threats, Cuba hardly makes

the list. For the Department of Homeland Security to redouble

its efforts and tie up more money and personnel in enforcing

the travel ban against Cuba--as the president proposed two

weeks ago--is an incredible waste of resources.

The New York Times points out:

The proper response to such outrages as the Castro regime's

roundup of dissidents and writers earlier this year is to

seek to overwhelm the island with American influence.

And the Orlando Sentinel argues:

The ban on U.S. travel is futile, self-defeating, a waste

of scarce resources and inconsistent with other American

policies.

These papers spoke out in favor of the Senate's actions because they recognize that the current policy has been a failure and because they know that engagement with Cuba is the best and most effective way to bring democratic change to Cuba.

In my view, the Cuba travel provisions should not even be subject to conference. The House and Senate have passed the same amendment; there is nothing for conferees to discuss.

There are many Members of this body who have worked hard to ease the embargo. Any Treasury-Transportation conference report that does not include the Senate and House-passed language is unacceptable, and we will look at all procedural options to stop this from happening.

That said, I fully expect this amendment to become law. Despite recent incorrect reporting, none of the supporters of this legislation believe that we can't accomplish our goal of lifting the Cuba travel ban.

And I have to say here that I do not believe the President will veto this bill. Of course, the Cuba provisions have overwhelming support, but the appropriations bill itself passed the Senate 90 to 3. The administration knows a veto could be easily overridden.

I do believe that pro-embargo forces see the writing on the wall. Momentum to end the embargo is clearly building. We have had a year filled with success.

Several months ago, Senators Enzi, Dorgan, and I introduced legislation, S. 950, that would permanently lift the travel ban. There are 31 cosponsors of that legislation, and we are adding new cosponsors this week.

The Foreign Relations Committee has committed to vote on that legislation by the end of the year, and I expect the committee to approve it by a large majority.

Recent polls indicate that most Americans oppose the travel ban. In fact, even most Cuban Americans--historically supportive of the embargo--favor lifting the ban.

So the Senate and the House votes are only the latest rebuke of an outdated policy.

Thirteen of the 16 Senate appropriators on the Subcommittee were supportive of the Cuba amendment. And I am confident they will work hard to keep this provision. But I also know they will be under some pressure. I urge them to stand up to those who might try to defy the will of the Congress.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the aforementioned editorials.

There being on objection, the material was ordered to be printed in

Madam President, 1 year ago the Senate, Minnesota, and our Nation suffered a great loss. I remember that day clearly. I was in Great Falls attending the Montana Farmers Union Convention. I was in such disbelief.

Senator Wellstone, his wife Sheila, daughter Marcia, three of his staffers Mary McEvoy, Tom Lapic and Will McLaughlin, and two pilots tragically lost their lives in a plane crash in northern Minnesota.

Senator Wellstone, known to everyone simply as Paul, served his state of Minnesota for 12 years. Paul was a special person for whom I had the highest personal regard. Though I may not have always agreed with Paul on all the issues, I always respected him as he expressed his views with such passion and conviction.

Paul was frequently seen on the Senate floor giving impassioned speeches on different issues. He was always fighting for the little guy, the underdog. Whether it was providing disaster assistance for farmers and ranchers, working mental health parity, or helping the less fortunate in our society, Paul was always fighting for what he believed in. I was fortunate to sit with Paul on the Senate Agricultural Committee. Though Paul may not have sat at the head of the table, he made it clear that his message was important and that everyone heard it. I was proud and grateful to have Paul on my team fighting for natural disaster assistance for farmers in 2001 and 2002. Minnesota, Montana, and our Nation's agriculture producers benefited from his fight throughout the debate.

Paul embraced his work the same way he embraced his life and relationship with Sheila. With passion, dedication and conviction. I admired him greatly.

Paul loved his State and he loved his job as Senator, but most of all he loved his wife Sheila. And in order to understand Paul, one had to understand Paul and Sheila's relationship.

Paul and Sheila were a package deal. She was his world. I often saw the two of them walking the halls of the Senate together. And Paul always insisted that Sheila get credit for his successes. She was his rock. She was his life. She was his everything. It seems most appropriate that Paul and Sheila left this life together. He would have been lost without her.

On the 1-year anniversary of his passing, Paul is sorely missed. The Senate is not the same without him. The floor is a little quieter. The halls are no longer filled with his enthusiasm and passion for life and justice. Paul was a good man, a good senator, and a good friend. Paul Wellstone is deeply missed.

(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment that would suspend the absurd restrictions against travel by United States citizens in Cuba. When you stop and think about it, why should the U.S. Government restrict the freedom of U.S. citizens to travel? Particularly we should end the restriction on travel to Cuba.

Over 25 colleagues of mine have cosponsored legislation that says we should end the travel ban, something I very much agree with. When we have the vote, not too far from now, it is my expectation and certainly my hope the majority of my colleagues will agree it does not make sense for the U.S. Government to restrict the travel of United States citizens to Cuba.

Why do I say that? First, it limits one of our basic freedoms, the freedom of United States citizens to travel. How ironic it is that democracy in the United States of America, which purports to be a country that encourages democracy around the world, basically restricts American liberties. Why restrict American liberties in order to encourage democracies in other countries?

The administration's restriction of United States citizens' travel to Cuba affects our ability to fight the war on terrorism. Why do I say that? Because the Treasury Department must waste scarce and valuable resources to enforce these travel restrictions. It is maddening to me the administration is trying to administer resources for that effort instead of fighting terrorism, which is much more pernicious and where we must spend much more.

Another reason it makes no sense to restrict United States citizens' travel to Cuba is it makes it harder for Americans to establish business relationships, to sell products to Cuba, to get to know the Cuban people and put deals together. People in other countries can travel to Cuba--the French, Germans, Canadians. Their governments say sure, great, we want our citizens to travel to Cuba. But we are preventing our American farmers, our ranchers, our American citizens from selling products to Cuba and getting to know the Cuban people. It makes no sense. I believe we should lift the travel restrictions. It would increase sales of American products to Cuba, increase contact with Cuba, increase the ability of American citizens to develop relationships with people in Cuba which inure to the benefit certainly of the United States and to the Cuban people.

I also add parenthetically that earlier this year the Treasury Department, under the guidance of the State Department, went an extra step in pursuing their wrongheaded approach in restricting travel of United States citizens to Cuba by refusing to allow a license for a second United States agribusiness expedition in Cuba. The first expedition was very successful, resulting in $92 million in sales. That is $92 million of agriculture sales forfeited because our own Government would not allow United States citizens to travel as farmers and ranchers and businessmen particularly to organize the expedition.

Worst of all, restricting American citizens from going to Cuba also hurts Cubans. The travel ban shelters the Castro regime and protects them from American influence, limiting the opportunity for Cubans to interact with Americans. The infamous arrests of 75 dissidents last spring is a case in point. They were arrested because they got, allegedly, too close to Americans. In other words, the arrests indicate the Cuban Government fears increasing contacts between dissidents and American citizens. More evidence and more contact between Americans and Cuban citizens will help encourage democracy.

Our country has fallen into the mistaken belief that we should have carrots and sticks with Cuba; that is, reward Cuba for doing good things and punish Cuba for doing bad things. That gives Cuba veto power over United States foreign policy with respect to Cuba and puts the policy in the hands of Castro and lets him decide what we Americans do or do not do, lets him decide whether we can allow American citizens to travel to Cuba. It makes no sense whatever. Yet that is a policy this administration encourages.

The long and short of this is--and I am repeating arguments others are making--coolly and calmly stand back and ask what is right, what makes sense. Should the U.S. Government prevent American citizens from traveling to Cuba? What will be accomplished by maintaining that restriction? What is to be accomplished if we let American citizens travel? One thing we certainly know, over the last 40 years restricting the travel of American citizens to Cuba and the embargo we have against trade in Cuba has not worked. It has not changed the Castro regime. Fidel Castro is still president. It has not worked.

If something has not worked, why not try something else, try something that seems logical? What seems logical is to engage Cubans. Cuba is a country. The United States is a country. Cuba is not a threat to the United States of America. Certainly Fidel Castro is in many respects not anybody we look up to particularly when he has such a repressionist regime, but it makes sense to engage Cuba. That will probably accelerate the changes in Cuba if we want; that is, the changes toward a more democratic system.

I have traveled to Cuba a couple of times. I was there recently with good Montanans, farmers and ranchers. I was struck with the poverty that exists in Cuba. The Castro dictatorship has decimated the Cuban economy, which is all the more reason why if we were to let Americans visit Cuba certainly with respect to food and agricultural products and trade with Cuba, that would help the Cuban people as well as give the United States farmers and ranchers another business opportunity.

It is time for a change. I understand the politics of this issue. We all know the politics. We also know politics are probably wrong. The reasons why the U.S. Government still has this travel ban are for political reasons that are not right. It is an opportunity for the United States and Congress to go on

the right course, the right direction, and put those political considerations aside and not be held hostage by the political interests but, rather, allow American citizens to travel to Cuba.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on October 15, we honored the late Senator Mike Mansfield with the unveiling of the new book, ``Senator Mansfield: The Extraordinary Life of a Great American Statesman and Diplomat,'' by author Don Oberdorfer.

To many, he was Senator Mansfield, Majority Leader Mansfield, or Ambassador Mansfield. To us in Montana, he was just Mike. He was our Mike. He was humble, self effacing, and didn't want people making a big fuss about him.

Although he wouldn't have wanted one, I'd like to thank the University of Montana and their alumni for hosting an event here in the Capitol to commemorate the life and times of Mike through this new book.

Mike had three great loves in his life: his wife Maureen, his State of Montana and serving in the United States Senate. Maureen was the love of his life. He always said that his successes were because of her. The last time I visited Mike in the hospital his face lit up when he talked about her. ``What a gal,'' he said. ``What a gal she was.''

Mike was a good friend and a great inspiration to many people, including myself. Mike encouraged me to get into public service, he was my mentor when I was first elected to Congress, and he provided me sage counsel until his death.

Mike would think that tonight's event was too much. That is just the kind of man he was. But it's our job to keep his memory alive and educate others on what a great impact he had on Montana, the Nation, and the world. It's our responsibility to ensure others can learn from his example of working together to do what's right.

The University of Montana Alumni Association, the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Library, the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center, and the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation here in Washington, D.C. all put forth a great effort to make this event possible. I greatly appreciate their hard work and dedication to the legacy of Maureen and Mike Mansfield.

And finally, I wish to recognize Don Oberdorfer for his persistence and dedication in writing about Mike's life. I thank Don for honoring a great man, our Mike. Montana's Mike Mansfield. He had the hands of a miner, the mind of a scholar, and the heart of a hero. We pay tribute to him and his beloved Maureen.

Mr. President, I rise today to highlight a small band of employees in my home State who deserve special recognition for the consistent high quality work they do. I am proud and pleased to honor Michelle Thibodeau, Chief of the Disability Determination Services office in Helena, MT, and her entire staff. Special recognition must also go to Cathy Surdock who works on youth claims and has been singled out for her excellence.

My constituents who face disabilities depend on those at the Disability Determination Services office to evaluate their claims and issue a fair and timely decision. Issuing these decisions quickly is of the utmost importance and makes a real difference to a lot of Montanans. The regional Social Security Administration Commissioner in Denver has recognized Montana's Disability Determination Services office for having the Nation's best processing time for claims. The Helena office averages 68 days processing time as compared to the national average of 110 days. This important honor is for work accomplished during Federal fiscal year 2002. This office won the same award for fiscal year 1999. Additionally, in 2001, they were awarded the Commissioner's Citation for Quality. Michelle's office reviews about 12,000 claims for benefits each year, 2000 of which involve children.

This award recognizes the staff ``for exemplary performance in accuracy, timeliness and productivity in providing exceptional service to Montana's citizens with disabilities.'' Montanans that find themselves physically and mentally challenged are grateful for the heroic steps that Michelle's staff has taken to address their needs in a timely fashion. The professionalism, compassion and technical expertise exhibited by the dedicated staff at the Disability Determination Services office is an example for us all.

In closing, I would like to offer my congratulations to Michelle, Cathy and the entire crew at Disability Determination Services and also my thanks for the good work you do daily. This is just another example of neighbor helping neighbor in the great State of Montana.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Levin's bill, S. 1767, the Auditor Independence and Tax Shelters Act. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor. The Auditor Independence and Tax Shelters Act compliments the legislation that I introduced last year, the Tax Shelter Transparency Act.

Just this year, the Tax Shelter Transparency Act has been passed by the Senate Finance Committee four times--in the Energy bill, the CARE Act, the Jobs and Growth bill, and most recently as part of the Jumpstart Our Business Strength Act. The same legislation has passed the full Senate three times--in the Energy bill, the CARE Act, and in the Jobs and Growth bill.

Senator Levin's legislation shuts down tax shelter promotion from the audit and financial statement side of the equation. Specifically, S. 1767 would strengthen auditor independence by prohibiting them from providing tax shelter services to their audit clients. The legislation would also reduce potential auditor conflicts of interest by codifying four auditor independence principles to guide the audit committees of the Board of Directors of a publicly traded company, when that committee is required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to decide whether the company may provide certain non-audit services to the corporation.

The proliferation of abusive tax shelters has been referred to as our nation's most significant tax compliance problem. The development, selling, and buying of tax shelters has also been characterized as a ``race to the bottom.'' The New York State Bar Association said ``the constant promotion of these frequently artificial transactions breeds significant disrespect for the tax system, encouraging responsible corporate taxpayers to expect this type of activity to be the norm, and to follow the lead of other taxpayers who have engaged in tax advantaged transactions.''

Simply put, this is unacceptable. It has been 2 years since the collapse of Enron. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act took significant steps to restore confidence in corporate America. But, when it comes to ensuring auditor independence, Sarbanes-Oxley did not go far enough. The passage of the Auditor Independence and Tax Shelters Act will help ensure that last year's corporate reform efforts have their intended effect of restoring real independence to the ``independent audit.''

This morning, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on tax shelters. We learned that the tax shelter problem is widespread. Tax shelter schemes are not just an Enron and Arthur Andersen phenomenon. They are

developed and promoted by accounting firms, law firms, and investment banks. Many corporations and individuals purchase tax shelters.

To give you an idea of the burden they are placing on these honest taxpayers--during the 1990s alone--actions taken to shut down the tax shelters that we knew about saved the American taxpayer $80 billion. More recently, a study commissioned by the IRS estimates the current cost to honest taxpayers ranges from $14 billion to $18 billion a year. That is up to $180 billion over ten years. I am simply unwilling to tell the schoolteacher in Montana that he needs to pony up a little more because Congress is unwilling to shut down a loophole that is costing tens of billions every year.

However, since the collapse of Enron, the Congress has failed to enact a single piece of tax legislation to curb tax shelter abuses. The time has come to shut down these abusive practices. I urge all of my congressional colleagues in the House and the Senate--to support the Auditor Independence and Tax Shelters Act and the Tax Shelter Transparency Act and send both of these pieces of tax shelter legislation to the President for his signature by the end of the year.

Mr. President, I wish to address my amendment No. 1831 to the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. President, today, our Nation faces three simultaneous challenges. This amendment would address each.

First, we need to support our troops and protect our national security. Second, we must not worsen our fiscal crisis. And third, we must work to restore our ailing economy.

We are considering today a bill that, among other things, provides resources to support our troops.

Now many of my colleagues have made the case, and made it well, that our government could well have avoided the quagmire that has become Iraq. And others of my colleagues have also made the case that the bill before us includes spending that is not appropriate for an emergency supplemental appropriations bill.

The merits of these disputes aside, that is not the subject of my amendment. The bill before us includes funding that will help our fighting men and women who valiantly serve our Nation. For that reason, I, and I expect the vast majority of Senators, will support this bill.

But as I noted at the outset, our entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan are not the only challenges that face our Nation. We also face crises of fiscal solvency. And we also face a stagnant economy. This amendment would address these two challenges as well.

As would the amendment offered by my colleague from Delaware, Mr. Biden, my amendment would pay for the spending in the bill before us today. As was so ably argued by the Senator from Delaware, the two Senators from North Dakota, and others, our Nation faces a fiscal crisis. Even for something as important as this bill, we must now seek to pay for what we do.

The Government's two most-authoritative estimators of our fiscal condition, the President's Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office, are agreed: The year just ended set an all-time record for budget deficits.

In its October Monthly Budget Review, CBO stated: ``The federal government incurred a total budget deficit of about $374 billion for fiscal year 2003, CBO estimates, more than twice the deficit recorded in 2002.''

And OMB and CBO also agree that the deficit for the year just started, fiscal year 2004, will again set a record. This summer, OMB projected this year's deficit at $475 billion. CBO projected it at $480 billion. Either way, it will once more be the largest ever.

And these summer projections did not include all of the new funding that we are debating today for the military occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. The bill before us today would provide $87 billion in additional funding, beyond the $79 billion already approved in this spring's supplemental appropriations bill. Of this new funding, the administration says $50 to $60 billion will spend out in fiscal year 2004. This would raise OMB's projection for next year's deficit to $525 to $535 billion.

This number would be in line with private forecasts. For example, the investment firm of Goldman Sachs projects a $525 billion deficit next year.

Now some say that we should ignore that these are record deficits because the numbers are smaller when compared to the size of the economy. But these deficits are large even as a percent of the GDP.

A deficit of $535 billion this year would equal 4.7 percent of the GDP. This would be the same percent of the economy as was the record $290 billion deficit in 1992. It is close on the heels of

the 4.8 percent to 5.1 percent deficits of the mid 1980s. And it is not far from the all-time record 6.0 percent of fiscal year 1983.

And if one excludes Social Security surpluses from the calculation, as required by law, this year's deficit would be almost $700 billion. Not only would this set an all-time record in dollar terms, it would also set an all-time record as a share of the economy.

Over the years to come, both OMB and CBO continue to project unacceptably large deficits. OMB projects deficits larger than $200 billion for as far as it projects--the next 5 years.

And CBO's August report indicates that if one simply extends expiring tax provisions other than the bonus depreciation provision, reforms the alternative minimum tax, and spends the expected $400 billion on a Medicare prescription drug benefit, then the Government will still end the next 10 years running a deficit of more than $400 billion a year.

In other words, if the Government simply stays on its current fiscal course, CBO projects that the Government will still be running unacceptably large deficits in 2013.

Under this realistic, indeed, conservative, scenario, over the next 10 years, the Government will run deficits totaling nearly $4 trillion. And 10 years from now, the amount of Federal Government debt held by the public will almost double, to nearly $8 trillion.

Again, private forecasters back up these scenarios. If anything, their projections are more pessimistic. The investment firm of Goldman Sachs is projecting a $5.5 trillion 10-year deficit.

Using the CBO projections adjusted as I have discussed, from 2001 to 2013, the Government will have piled up $4.6 trillion in debt held by the public, or roughly $15,000 in debt for every man, woman, and child in America. Every American child born in 2013 will come into this world owing $15,000 more in taxes because of the economic decisions that the Government is making right now.

That $4.6 trillion in new debt will come in addition to the $3.3 trillion in debt that we already owed in 2001. So that new baby born in 2013 will have a total debt burden of roughly $26,000 hanging over his or her head.

And more and more of the Government's debt is being held by foreigners, like China. With this greater debt, we are transferring to overseas powers a greater ability to affect our economy.

And that level of debt means that by 2013, the Government will be spending roughly $400 billion on interest on the debt alone. Before the Government can choose to spend anything in 2013 on fighting terrorism or education or national defense, it will have to spend $400 billion-- that's about 11\1/2\ percent of the total budget--that is nearly 2\1/2\ percent of the entire country's economic output--just to pay the interest on the debt that the Government will have accumulated by then.

But that is not all. If the Government stays on its current fiscal course and runs persistent and increasing budget deficits, it will increase its borrowing requirements. It will increase the Government's demand for money.

It will thus raise interest rates for mortgages, car loans, and student loans. It will thus lower economic growth. And it will thus lower the standard of living for millions of Americans.

Our Nation's high national debt and high deficits at the end of the next 10 years will leave our Nation in a vulnerable fiscal condition at exactly the wrong time, as the baby boom generation starts to retire.

We know to a near certainty the number of people who will reach the age of 65 in 2013. Unlike the likely results of particular economic policies, reasonable people cannot and do not disagree significantly over how many people were born in 1948--and thus over how many will be eligible for Social Security and Medicare in 2013. We know that we have a substantial budgetary challenge ahead of us, finding the money to pay for the retirement needs of the baby boom generation.

If we head into the next decade with high deficits, the Government will have no room to accommodate those retirement needs. The current policy will thus leave the Government with fewer choices to respond to the growing entitlement costs of the decades to come. The current policy will thus leave us with the grim choice of raising taxes, cutting long-promised and much-needed benefits, or dramatically cutting defense, education, and other core Government services.

So the first thing we need to do is to stop making things worse. We need to bring back the rule of paying as we go.

And that is what this amendment would do. It would suspend some of the tax cuts that Congress enacted earlier this year.

But my amendment would not do one thing that the amendment offered by my colleague from Delaware would have done. My amendment would not alter any of the tax cuts that Congress enacted in 2001. It would only affect tax cuts enacted earlier this year.

My amendment makes this distinction because I--and many of my colleagues--supported the 2001 tax cuts. We believed then and still believe that the tax law changes enacted in 2001 were important to our economy. And these tax cuts are still important to our Nation's economic growth. And so my amendment would not change them. Not at all.

Instead, it would postpone some of the tax cuts enacted earlier this year. When these tax cuts were debated, we were at war with Iraq. I believe--and continue to believe--that it is irresponsible to enact tax cuts during a time of war. The very fact that we are here debating an additional $87 billion for Iraq proves that.

This amendment would postpone some of the tax cuts that are targeted to wealthy individuals in order to pay for this $87 billion.

It would allow all of the funding in the underlying bill to go forward. It would thus support our troops.

It would pay for the spending in the bill. It would thus keep us from worsening our Nation's deficit crisis.

And it would pay for the spending in this bill without altering the 2001 tax cuts. It would preserve the economically beneficial effects of that tax cut in place. It would thus help our ailing economy.

I shall not press my amendment to a vote on this bill. The votes on this bill are now clear. But I urge my colleagues to consider the policies that I am seeking to advance with this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Health Care Tax Credit Expansion Act of 2003.

According to the most recent census figures, more than 41 million Americans lack health insurance coverage. More than the population of 23 States, plus the District of Columbia. As premiums sky rocket and the unemployment rate remains high--despite signs of economic recovery--I worry that this number may grow even higher.

For America's uninsured, the consequences of going without health coverage can be devastating.

Put plainly, uninsured Americans are less healthy than those with health insurance. They delay seeking medical care or go without treatment altogether that could prevent and detect crippling illnesses. Illnesses like diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. The uninsured are far less likely to receive health services if they are injured or become ill. They don't fill prescriptions that their doctors recommend.

These factors take an enormous personal toll on the lives of the uninsured. They are sicker and less productive. Their children are less likely to survive past infancy. And they must struggle with the knowledge that a serious injury or illness in their family might push them to the brink of financial ruin.

And there is also the impact on the rest of the U.S. economy that must be taken into account. Because when the uninsured become so sick that they must finally seek emergency treatment, there is often no one to pay for it. No insurance company. No government program.

So who absorbs the cost of uncompensated medical care? We all do. In the form of higher health care costs. Higher and higher premiums at a time when the cost of health care is already rising out of control.

The situation is becoming critical. And I believe the time for talking has ended. It is time for us to examine solutions instead of talking about the problem.

That is why I have joined with my colleague, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, to introduce this important piece of legislation.

Our bill would provide health care assistance to the unemployed--one specific category of those without health insurance. And one where we believe there is agreement to move forward.

More specifically, this bill would expand the 65 percent refundable, advanceable tax credit that is currently provided under the Trade Adjustment Assistance program to workers receiving unemployment benefits.

By building on the structure that Congress put in place last year under the Trade Act, we make it more likely that unemployed workers can receive benefits in a timely manner. Without significant implementation and start-up time.

And by building on the historic agreement that we reached last year, we are more likely to have support for the structure and approach.

Let me be clear. This bill is not a major overhaul of the U.S. health care system that several Democratic Presidential candidates have outlined. It was not intended and does not seek to cover everyone in this country without health insurance.

Rather the proposal would use the money set aside in this year's budget for the uninsured--$50 billion--on a targeted policy that I believe both sides can agree on. It is a practical, principled, incremental solution.

Why the unemployed?

According to the Labor Department, since February 2001, 2.6 million jobs have been lost. And with those jobs, an awful lot of health insurance has been lost, too.

Despite assertions by economists that the recession has ended and the economy is experiencing signs of improvement, the unemployment rate has remained stubbornly high--6.4 percent in June. In fact, we are hearing more and more talk of the same ``jobless recovery'' that we heard about following the recession in the early 1990s.

It is true that employment does not immediately improve when an economy emerges from recession. We read repeatedly that even if growth surges and business investment begins to take off tomorrow, the ranks of the unemployed may not thin for months.

Unfortunately, for many, many families, this means more weeks, if not months, of endless job searches. And a longer period of time without health coverage.

An estimated 46 percent of unemployed adults lack health insurance, or about 4 million unemployed workers. Less than one in three unemployed adults receives health coverage through their spouse or other family member.

And while 65 percent may qualify for COBRA continuation coverage, only 7 percent can afford to enroll. That is not surprising. Premiums for this coverage average almost $700 a month for family coverage and $250 for individual coverage. A very high price, given the average $1,100 monthly UI check.

Last year, when we debated the economic recovery package, both Republicans and Democrats proposed to expand health coverage for unemployed workers. There was almost universal agreement that this population deserved help and attention. So I think it's a good place for us to start from this year.

Why a tax credit?

There's been a lot of debate about the best way to expand health insurance coverage to the uninsured. Most Democrats favor expanding public programs like Medicaid and CHIP, and harnessing the power of the group insurance market to provide affordable coverage options.

Most Republicans, however, favor a more market-based approach that gives the uninsured tax breaks and allows them to use the individual insurance market.

But, after years of logjams and disagreements, we were able to come together last year when we created the TAA tax credit. The TAA tax credit merges a market-based tax credit with the affordability of the group insurance market. This proposal simply builds on that progress. With the structures now in place to implement the TAA credit, a new tax credit for the unemployed can easily be incorporated into the new system.

Caveats

I realize that the TAA tax credit is not a perfect model. And we may need to make some adjustments as full implementation kicks in this summer. For example, we need to ensure that the groups we intended to cover actually have access to coverage.

In particular, all workers who had health insurance coverage for 3 months before they lost their jobs should be assured of coverage they qualify for under TAA. I support making the technical change that would provide that assurance.

I am also willing to consider other improvements, like additional help for low income workers.

But I do not think these adjustments should deter us from moving forward with an expansion of the tax credit. Millions of unemployed workers and their families need our help. And they need it now.

All told, expanding the TAA tax credit to the unemployed would provide health insurance coverage for 1.4 million Americans a month who are currently unemployed and uninsured. It's not a panacea. But it's a start.

I hope my colleagues will join this fight by helping us pass this legislation, and taking a solid step toward providing quality, affordable health insurance to all Americans.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Health Care Tax Credit Expansion Act of 2003.

According to the most recent census figures, more than 41 million Americans lack health insurance coverage. More than the population of 23 States, plus the District of Columbia. As premiums sky rocket and the unemployment rate remains high--despite signs of economic recovery--I worry that this number may grow even higher.

For America's uninsured, the consequences of going without health coverage can be devastating.

Put plainly, uninsured Americans are less healthy than those with health insurance. They delay seeking medical care or go without treatment altogether that could prevent and detect crippling illnesses. Illnesses like diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. The uninsured are far less likely to receive health services if they are injured or become ill. They don't fill prescriptions that their doctors recommend.

These factors take an enormous personal toll on the lives of the uninsured. They are sicker and less productive. Their children are less likely to survive past infancy. And they must struggle with the knowledge that a serious injury or illness in their family might push them to the brink of financial ruin.

And there is also the impact on the rest of the U.S. economy that must be taken into account. Because when the uninsured become so sick that they must finally seek emergency treatment, there is often no one to pay for it. No insurance company. No government program.

So who absorbs the cost of uncompensated medical care? We all do. In the form of higher health care costs. Higher and higher premiums at a time when the cost of health care is already rising out of control.

The situation is becoming critical. And I believe the time for talking has ended. It is time for us to examine solutions instead of talking about the problem.

That is why I have joined with my colleague, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, to introduce this important piece of legislation.

Our bill would provide health care assistance to the unemployed--one specific category of those without health insurance. And one where we believe there is agreement to move forward.

More specifically, this bill would expand the 65 percent refundable, advanceable tax credit that is currently provided under the Trade Adjustment Assistance program to workers receiving unemployment benefits.

By building on the structure that Congress put in place last year under the Trade Act, we make it more likely that unemployed workers can receive benefits in a timely manner. Without significant implementation and start-up time.

And by building on the historic agreement that we reached last year, we are more likely to have support for the structure and approach.

Let me be clear. This bill is not a major overhaul of the U.S. health care system that several Democratic Presidential candidates have outlined. It was not intended and does not seek to cover everyone in this country without health insurance.

Rather the proposal would use the money set aside in this year's budget for the uninsured--$50 billion--on a targeted policy that I believe both sides can agree on. It is a practical, principled, incremental solution.

Why the unemployed?

According to the Labor Department, since February 2001, 2.6 million jobs have been lost. And with those jobs, an awful lot of health insurance has been lost, too.

Despite assertions by economists that the recession has ended and the economy is experiencing signs of improvement, the unemployment rate has remained stubbornly high--6.4 percent in June. In fact, we are hearing more and more talk of the same ``jobless recovery'' that we heard about following the recession in the early 1990s.

It is true that employment does not immediately improve when an economy emerges from recession. We read repeatedly that even if growth surges and business investment begins to take off tomorrow, the ranks of the unemployed may not thin for months.

Unfortunately, for many, many families, this means more weeks, if not months, of endless job searches. And a longer period of time without health coverage.

An estimated 46 percent of unemployed adults lack health insurance, or about 4 million unemployed workers. Less than one in three unemployed adults receives health coverage through their spouse or other family member.

And while 65 percent may qualify for COBRA continuation coverage, only 7 percent can afford to enroll. That is not surprising. Premiums for this coverage average almost $700 a month for family coverage and $250 for individual coverage. A very high price, given the average $1,100 monthly UI check.

Last year, when we debated the economic recovery package, both Republicans and Democrats proposed to expand health coverage for unemployed workers. There was almost universal agreement that this population deserved help and attention. So I think it's a good place for us to start from this year.

Why a tax credit?

There's been a lot of debate about the best way to expand health insurance coverage to the uninsured. Most Democrats favor expanding public programs like Medicaid and CHIP, and harnessing the power of the group insurance market to provide affordable coverage options.

Most Republicans, however, favor a more market-based approach that gives the uninsured tax breaks and allows them to use the individual insurance market.

But, after years of logjams and disagreements, we were able to come together last year when we created the TAA tax credit. The TAA tax credit merges a market-based tax credit with the affordability of the group insurance market. This proposal simply builds on that progress. With the structures now in place to implement the TAA credit, a new tax credit for the unemployed can easily be incorporated into the new system.

Caveats

I realize that the TAA tax credit is not a perfect model. And we may need to make some adjustments as full implementation kicks in this summer. For example, we need to ensure that the groups we intended to cover actually have access to coverage.

In particular, all workers who had health insurance coverage for 3 months before they lost their jobs should be assured of coverage they qualify for under TAA. I support making the technical change that would provide that assurance.

I am also willing to consider other improvements, like additional help for low income workers.

But I do not think these adjustments should deter us from moving forward with an expansion of the tax credit. Millions of unemployed workers and their families need our help. And they need it now.

All told, expanding the TAA tax credit to the unemployed would provide health insurance coverage for 1.4 million Americans a month who are currently unemployed and uninsured. It's not a panacea. But it's a start.

I hope my colleagues will join this fight by helping us pass this legislation, and taking a solid step toward providing quality, affordable health insurance to all Americans.

Mr. President, as we have worked over the last 2 years to reauthorize the 1996 landmark welfare reform law, I have often talked with pride about the welfare reform program in my own State of Montana. Montana was a welfare reform pioneer, embarking on reform under a waiver before 1996. We have continued to operate a program under that waiver and it has served us well.

The number of Montana families receiving monthly welfare checks is down sharply since the early 1990s. Under the waiver program, Montana achieved a participation rate of 84 percent in fiscal year 2002, despite a struggling economy. Montana is a regular recipient of ``high performance'' bonus awards, especially for the key criteria of moving welfare recipients quickly into jobs. An independent study by Abt Associates concluded that under Montana's program ``a Work First model has been implemented effectively in varied rural settings, including Indian reservations and remote areas'' and that it reflects an ``efficient and successful'' strategy. In other words, we're on the right track.

However, the waiver expires on December 31. We would like it extended. Given our track record, we think it is only common sense to continue a successful model. Others, unfortunately, have opposed such an extension. It is an issue we expect to be debated during consideration of the full 5 year reauthorization bill.

As we extend the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program for 6 months, I want to confirm with the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, that he is willing to work with me to ensure that the welfare reauthorization bill allows Montana to maintain the successful direction of the program it has operated under its waiver. Given his efforts to work in a bipartisan manner, I am optimistic we will be able to reach an understanding on these policies.