Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I introduce the Emergency Trade Program Extension Act of 2006.

For more than 30 years, the United States has opened its vast market to developing countries through trade preference programs. We have done so to encourage greater economic development and openness in those countries. The United States is the largest market in the world. And it is also one of the most open. And this openness has played an important role in economic development, both in the United States and around the globe.

Two important preference programs are set to expire at the end of this year: the Generalized System of Preferences and the Andean Trade Preference Act.

I know that some have criticized these programs, GSP in particular, for being unnecessary, inefficient, or counterproductive. They argue that the majority of the imports that benefit from GSP come from just a handful of middle-income countries. And they argue that the truly poorest developing countries barely use the program at all. Many of the most active users of GSP--like Brazil, Thailand, Indonesia, and Argentina--have developed strong export sectors. This raises the question of whether they even need preference programs to compete on the world market.

And critics charge that big GSP beneficiary countries like India and Brazil were among the most recalcitrant in supporting greater market access in the Doha Round negotiations. They claim that the active efforts of these countries contributed to the collapse of the Round. Why, they ask, should we keep our markets open to such countries, if they will not open their markets to us?

I am not deaf to these criticisms. I think that there is much truth in them. But before we allow these important programs simply to expire, I believe that we should examine them in detail. We should explore whether and how they might be changed to address valid criticisms. We should understand the effect that canceling them might have on the U.S. image around the world, U.S. diplomatic efforts, and our trade priorities in the Doha Round and elsewhere. And we should give those in the United States who rely upon these programs an opportunity to explain how their interests might be adversely affected by cancelling GSP and ATPA.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative recently began a review of the GSP program to look at many of these very issues. That review will not be completed until mid-November, at the earliest. I believe that we should preserve the status quo until we in the Congress have had an opportunity to digest the outcome of that review and conduct our own analysis.

GSP is important to keeping countries engaged in the trade liberalization dialogue. For one thing, these countries are interested in maintaining benefits under the program. As a result, they are more willing to address concerns that we may raise with them. GSP- eligibility has given us leverage to address bilateral trade problems-- such as intellectual property protection--and to persuade beneficiary countries to respect international norms on labor rights, human rights, and other matters. And as they gain more experience in international markets, they can see the benefits of liberalization in action. Without GSP, those countries might see China or other big exporters take over their share of our market.

Most of the imports from GSP beneficiaries occur outside the program. U.S. imports from GSP beneficiary countries in 2005 exceeded $248 billion. Of that, less than $27 billion--less than 10 percent--entered duty-free under the GSP program.

GSP is much more important to the least developed countries. One- third of the total imports from these countries were under GSP preferences. Many of the least developed countries depend on

GSP to sell their products into the American market. They have worked hard to establish export-oriented industries, but still need the extra boost provided by GSP or other preference programs.

Some of our other preference programs target these very poor countries, including the preferences under the African Growth and Opportunity Act and the Caribbean Basin programs. But for a large number of countries--including Afghanistan, Armenia, Bangladesh, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, and Pakistan--there are no other programs to help them compete against other exporters in the U.S. market.

GSP is also important to U.S. competitiveness. Raw materials and components for further processing make up more than two-thirds of the products imported under GSP. For example, GSP imports make up a significant percentage of U.S. total imports of leather processed after tanning--45 percent, ferroalloys--37 percent, aluminum sheets--25 percent, and copper wire--25 percent.

American retailers have taken advantage of the programs to find new products and new sources of supply. And every year, U.S. consumers save millions of dollars because of GSP duty savings.

Trade preferences for our Andean partners have helped curb the production and smuggling of drugs. Trade can encourage diversification out of drug crops, and offer an economic future to people who otherwise are easy prey for narcotraffickers. The Andean preference programs play a significant role in facilitating exports from Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia. Almost 60 percent of exports from those countries are covered by these preferences.

Some argue that trade preferences for the Andean countries are now both unnecessary and ill-advised. They say that the preferences are unnecessary because the United States has negotiated free trade agreements with Peru and Colombia. And they say that the preferences are ill-advised in extending benefits to Bolivia and Ecuador, both of which have taken actions and made statements recently at variance with U.S. interests.

While we have negotiated free trade agreements with Peru and Colombia, neither has passed the U.S. Congress. It is far from clear that the U.S.-Peru agreement will even be considered in Congress before the Andean preference program expires at the end of this year, and there is no chance at all that the U.S.-Colombia agreement will be. We should extend the Andean preference program for these countries to avoid a lapse in benefits prior to the implementation of any free-trade agreement with them. Such a lapse would be disruptive to Peru and Colombia. And such a lapse would be disruptive to U.S. businesses, as well.

It may be that there are good arguments for ending the program with respect to Bolivia and Ecuador. But again, I believe that we should give Congress time to examine these arguments as well as any counterarguments and make a reasoned judgment about the future of the program.

That is why I am sponsoring the Emergency Trade Program Extension Act of 2006. This bill will extend both GSP and the Andean Trade Preference Act for 2 years. This is a short-term extension to allow the Congress to have hearings and consider in depth what should be done with these programs. I do not believe that we should let these programs expire without the benefit of a thorough analysis of their merits and failings.

Some may argue that this legislation is unnecessary. They may say that we can allow these programs to expire, consider them in depth next year, and then renew them retroactively if we so decide. Indeed, we have done that before. But that is very disruptive, both to U.S. businesses and the countries that rely upon these programs. The uncertainty of whether the programs will be renewed retroactively, or renewed at all, undermines the goals of encouraging investment in the beneficiary countries. So we should pass this legislation to maintain the integrity of these programs while we consider what to do with them.

This legislation also includes a 1-year extension of the third- country fabric provisions in the African Growth and Opportunity Act, or AGOA. These provisions are currently set to expire in September of next year. Those provisions allow Africa's poorest countries to import fabric from countries outside of Africa for use in their apparel industries. These third-country fabric provisions have helped create jobs in desperately poor countries like Lesotho, where one textile worker supports numerous family members. U.S. retailers looking to next year's products are making their sourcing decisions now. If they cannot be confident that Africa will continue to be able to import third- country fabric, then they will stop sourcing from Africa. And tens of thousands of jobs could be lost.

This bill is not intended as the final word on AGOA. I fully expect that the next Congress will consider a comprehensive reform of AGOA. Many worthwhile ideas have been proposed. But we do not have time to consider them before Africa will begin to feel the effects of the expiration of third-country fabric provisions next fall. We should give Africa breathing space while Congress completes its work.

The suspension of the Doha Round negotiations at the World Trade Organization has sparked a period of soul searching and debate in the trade community both here and abroad. Our trade preference programs should be part of that debate. It simply makes no sense to look at these programs in isolation from the wider discussion about the future of trade policy. And we cannot look at the future of the trading system without considering the treatment of developing countries in that system.

For all of these reasons, I am proud to sponsor the Emergency Trade Program Extension Act of 2006. I am proud to note, as well, that this bill is a companion to an identical bill introduced yesterday in the House of Representatives by my friend the ranking Democratic member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel. I applaud his leadership on these issues. And I look forward to working with him to get this important legislation passed into law.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Emergency Trade Program Extension Act of 2006.

For more than 30 years, the United States has opened its vast market to developing countries through trade preference programs. We have done so to encourage greater economic development and openness in those countries. The United States is the largest market in the world. And it is also one of the most open. And this openness has played an important role in economic development, both in the United States and around the globe.

Two important preference programs are set to expire at the end of this year: the Generalized System of Preferences and the Andean Trade Preference Act.

I know that some have criticized these programs, GSP in particular, for being unnecessary, inefficient, or counterproductive. They argue that the majority of the imports that benefit from GSP come from just a handful of middle-income countries. And they argue that the truly poorest developing countries barely use the program at all. Many of the most active users of GSP--like Brazil, Thailand, Indonesia, and Argentina--have developed strong export sectors. This raises the question of whether they even need preference programs to compete on the world market.

And critics charge that big GSP beneficiary countries like India and Brazil were among the most recalcitrant in supporting greater market access in the Doha Round negotiations. They claim that the active efforts of these countries contributed to the collapse of the Round. Why, they ask, should we keep our markets open to such countries, if they will not open their markets to us?

I am not deaf to these criticisms. I think that there is much truth in them. But before we allow these important programs simply to expire, I believe that we should examine them in detail. We should explore whether and how they might be changed to address valid criticisms. We should understand the effect that canceling them might have on the U.S. image around the world, U.S. diplomatic efforts, and our trade priorities in the Doha Round and elsewhere. And we should give those in the United States who rely upon these programs an opportunity to explain how their interests might be adversely affected by cancelling GSP and ATPA.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative recently began a review of the GSP program to look at many of these very issues. That review will not be completed until mid-November, at the earliest. I believe that we should preserve the status quo until we in the Congress have had an opportunity to digest the outcome of that review and conduct our own analysis.

GSP is important to keeping countries engaged in the trade liberalization dialogue. For one thing, these countries are interested in maintaining benefits under the program. As a result, they are more willing to address concerns that we may raise with them. GSP- eligibility has given us leverage to address bilateral trade problems-- such as intellectual property protection--and to persuade beneficiary countries to respect international norms on labor rights, human rights, and other matters. And as they gain more experience in international markets, they can see the benefits of liberalization in action. Without GSP, those countries might see China or other big exporters take over their share of our market.

Most of the imports from GSP beneficiaries occur outside the program. U.S. imports from GSP beneficiary countries in 2005 exceeded $248 billion. Of that, less than $27 billion--less than 10 percent--entered duty-free under the GSP program.

GSP is much more important to the least developed countries. One- third of the total imports from these countries were under GSP preferences. Many of the least developed countries depend on

GSP to sell their products into the American market. They have worked hard to establish export-oriented industries, but still need the extra boost provided by GSP or other preference programs.

Some of our other preference programs target these very poor countries, including the preferences under the African Growth and Opportunity Act and the Caribbean Basin programs. But for a large number of countries--including Afghanistan, Armenia, Bangladesh, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, and Pakistan--there are no other programs to help them compete against other exporters in the U.S. market.

GSP is also important to U.S. competitiveness. Raw materials and components for further processing make up more than two-thirds of the products imported under GSP. For example, GSP imports make up a significant percentage of U.S. total imports of leather processed after tanning--45 percent, ferroalloys--37 percent, aluminum sheets--25 percent, and copper wire--25 percent.

American retailers have taken advantage of the programs to find new products and new sources of supply. And every year, U.S. consumers save millions of dollars because of GSP duty savings.

Trade preferences for our Andean partners have helped curb the production and smuggling of drugs. Trade can encourage diversification out of drug crops, and offer an economic future to people who otherwise are easy prey for narcotraffickers. The Andean preference programs play a significant role in facilitating exports from Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia. Almost 60 percent of exports from those countries are covered by these preferences.

Some argue that trade preferences for the Andean countries are now both unnecessary and ill-advised. They say that the preferences are unnecessary because the United States has negotiated free trade agreements with Peru and Colombia. And they say that the preferences are ill-advised in extending benefits to Bolivia and Ecuador, both of which have taken actions and made statements recently at variance with U.S. interests.

While we have negotiated free trade agreements with Peru and Colombia, neither has passed the U.S. Congress. It is far from clear that the U.S.-Peru agreement will even be considered in Congress before the Andean preference program expires at the end of this year, and there is no chance at all that the U.S.-Colombia agreement will be. We should extend the Andean preference program for these countries to avoid a lapse in benefits prior to the implementation of any free-trade agreement with them. Such a lapse would be disruptive to Peru and Colombia. And such a lapse would be disruptive to U.S. businesses, as well.

It may be that there are good arguments for ending the program with respect to Bolivia and Ecuador. But again, I believe that we should give Congress time to examine these arguments as well as any counterarguments and make a reasoned judgment about the future of the program.

That is why I am sponsoring the Emergency Trade Program Extension Act of 2006. This bill will extend both GSP and the Andean Trade Preference Act for 2 years. This is a short-term extension to allow the Congress to have hearings and consider in depth what should be done with these programs. I do not believe that we should let these programs expire without the benefit of a thorough analysis of their merits and failings.

Some may argue that this legislation is unnecessary. They may say that we can allow these programs to expire, consider them in depth next year, and then renew them retroactively if we so decide. Indeed, we have done that before. But that is very disruptive, both to U.S. businesses and the countries that rely upon these programs. The uncertainty of whether the programs will be renewed retroactively, or renewed at all, undermines the goals of encouraging investment in the beneficiary countries. So we should pass this legislation to maintain the integrity of these programs while we consider what to do with them.

This legislation also includes a 1-year extension of the third- country fabric provisions in the African Growth and Opportunity Act, or AGOA. These provisions are currently set to expire in September of next year. Those provisions allow Africa's poorest countries to import fabric from countries outside of Africa for use in their apparel industries. These third-country fabric provisions have helped create jobs in desperately poor countries like Lesotho, where one textile worker supports numerous family members. U.S. retailers looking to next year's products are making their sourcing decisions now. If they cannot be confident that Africa will continue to be able to import third- country fabric, then they will stop sourcing from Africa. And tens of thousands of jobs could be lost.

This bill is not intended as the final word on AGOA. I fully expect that the next Congress will consider a comprehensive reform of AGOA. Many worthwhile ideas have been proposed. But we do not have time to consider them before Africa will begin to feel the effects of the expiration of third-country fabric provisions next fall. We should give Africa breathing space while Congress completes its work.

The suspension of the Doha Round negotiations at the World Trade Organization has sparked a period of soul searching and debate in the trade community both here and abroad. Our trade preference programs should be part of that debate. It simply makes no sense to look at these programs in isolation from the wider discussion about the future of trade policy. And we cannot look at the future of the trading system without considering the treatment of developing countries in that system.

For all of these reasons, I am proud to sponsor the Emergency Trade Program Extension Act of 2006. I am proud to note, as well, that this bill is a companion to an identical bill introduced yesterday in the House of Representatives by my friend the ranking Democratic member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel. I applaud his leadership on these issues. And I look forward to working with him to get this important legislation passed into law.

Mr. President, yesterday I tried to get the Senate to pass a bill extending the 2005 expired tax provisions, what we call the extenders package. The majority leader objected at that time and stated that it was his desire that the extenders continue to be part of the so-called ``trifecta'' package, married with estate tax relief and a minimum wage increase. I told him yesterday of my concern that since that strategy has already failed a number of times, and I don't think there is much hope of any change, and it is time to let the popular tax extenders package pass.

I want to take the leader at his word that there is hope for change. But I also read comments yesterday by one of our Senate colleagues tasked by the majority leader to try to find a solution to all of this, and that Member of that so-called task force is quoted as saying, ``My counsel is to do it in the lame duck session.''

I very much oppose that. I don't think it makes any sense to push all of this in a lame duck. Let me tell you why.

Last week, I asked the IRS Commissioner at a hearing of the Finance Committee what the drop-dead date was for tax extenders. By drop-dead date, I mean what is the latest date by which the IRS can receive changes to tax law and still have time to print and distribute tax forms for the 2006 tax year. He told me October 15. That is the drop- dead date. Clearly, that is after the recess and that is why this strategy makes no sense.

It makes no sense because after that date, it is very difficult for the IRS to print up the forms and, more than that, a lot of mistakes will be made.

Yesterday, I joined my good friend, the chairman of the Finance Committee, in releasing an analysis of just how the IRS will deal with all of these changes. Let me tell you what they concluded.

Senator Grassley said upon releasing this analysis that, ``A delay of legislative action beyond the anticipated recess date of September 29 will cause hardship, tax compliance problems, and

confusion for the millions of taxpayers who claim these widely- applicable tax benefits.''

It is just a mess that we need not cause.

I also add that Senator Grassley's counterpart in the House, the chairman of Ways and Means Committee, said, ``My job is to be responsible to the taxpayers, not a bureaucracy to make its job easier.''

I might also add that we are here to get the extenders passed for the taxpayers, to help taxpayers because taxpayers need this relief.

The chairman of the Finance Committee went on to say that, ``The failure to extend expired tax cuts will at best cause administrative snafus for the IRS and at worst cause taxpayers to miss out on the tax benefits they are entitled to.''

This is a taxpayer problem--one that we should address now before we recess.

I would also like to point out something else which I think is important. A resolution was passed yesterday by the House Republican Study Committee. They surveyed their members, and developed a list of five priorities. One of these priorities adopted by the 110-member group in the House Republican Study Committee was to ``pass a clean tax cut extenders bill.''

I would guess that group would be invested as much anyone else in passing the so-called trifecta bill, but even the 110 members in the other body have decided it is time to move on and pass the extenders.

There are more than 3 million teachers who have been buying classroom supplies who are waiting for their deduction to be restored. There are more than 12 million families in States with sales taxes, including many in the leader's home State of Tennessee, hoping they can deduct those sales taxes, just like families in income tax States. And there are more than 20,000 businesses hoping for this worker credit, that have hired the hard-to-employ workers who have been on long-term public assistance, people who simply want to get back into the workplace, and need a boost from the work opportunity credit. Those taxpayers are hoping the Senate gets this passed.

Just this morning I received a letter signed by more than 600 American companies and 164 trade associations representing thousands of small, medium, and large companies employing high-tech workers in research. They urged us to end this ``cloud of uncertainty.'' They are very concerned we are not going to pass this in time.

As I have said a couple of times, there are companies that have to restate their financials because of Congress's failure to pass these tax incentives which expired last year. It has not been the law for about 9 months, and they have to start restating their earnings on financial reports because of Congress's ineptitude, Congress's incompetence in not passing and continuing the research and development tax credit, teachers deduction, tuition deduction, and sales tax deduction.

School started just a short while ago. There are teachers who go to Wal-Mart to get supplies for their classroom because the school district is not providing enough to them. We should be giving them a tax deduction. School started and we are not giving it to them anymore. It makes no sense. It is wrong. It shows the competency of this Congress in doing its business is now very much in question.

I am happy to yield.

The Senator is correct. That is the number that use this work opportunity tax credit. We are trying to employ people. People are trying to get to work.

If we do not enact this legislation and make it retroactive this year.

That is right, at a time when other countries give very generous assistance to their companies in developing research and development so those countries can compete in the global economy.

And the answer to the Senator's implied question is, yes, all of that will occur if we do not get this passed. That is correct.

I see another colleague on the Senate floor who may have a question to ask.

I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 additional minutes.

I say to my good friend, we are talking about 2 minutes.

Mr. President, I think the Senator has a question to ask.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Durbin, Wyden, Biden, Lautenberg, Nelson of Nebraska, Conrad, Sarbanes, Leahy, and Byrd be made cosponsors of my amendments Nos. 5003 and 5004.

Now I proceed----

On the part of some.

Unanimous-Consent Request--H.R. 4096

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 326, H.R. 4096; that the Senate adopt my amendments Nos. 5003 and 5004, which is the agreed-upon tax extenders package, the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the Senate return to the port security bill--which is not objected to--and all this occur without intervening action.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join Chairman Grassley in introducing the Medicare Data Access and Research Act. This bill will take an important step to advance the safety, efficacy, and quality of health care services delivered to people under the Medicare Program and it will help improve the care delivered to all Americans.

This bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, to make Medicare data accessible to Federal health agencies and the health services research community for the purpose of conducting studies that will serve the public health. As the largest single payer of health care services in the United States--covering over 40 million lives, 70 million hospital days, and processing nearly a billion physician claims per year--Medicare collects and maintains a wealth of information on the health services delivered to a significant portion of the population. This information has been a national resource for research and analysis of health care. And with the addition of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, it will be the most comprehensive resource our Nation has to study the effects of diseases and the treatments we have for them.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service, CMS, currently releases certain Medicare data to the public and more comprehensive data to the research community. This bill would build on current activities by requiring CMS to link hospital claims, physician claims, and other relevant information to data collected under the new Medicare drug benefit.

In addition, the Secretary will provide yearly access to the linked Medicare dataset to all Federal health agencies within the department, such as the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, and the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research. These agencies will enter into data use agreements with CMS to ensure that the type and level of Medicare data shared is appropriate, that the agencies conduct research in accordance with their missions and the purpose of furthering the public health, and that the privacy of the data is protected. The goal is to give Federal health agencies another tool to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and quality of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries--a large segment of the health system.

This bill also provides public health researchers access to the linked Medicare dataset. Expanding access to Medicare data will open up a new era in our health system. It will enable scientists to more quickly identify both short- and long-term safety concerns with drug regimens and health treatments. It will enable more treatments to be compared. And it will promote more development of guidelines, so providers and patients know more about what works best.

Some may argue that access to linked Medicare data should not be limited to researchers and should be available for commercial purposes. But the full Medicare database should be used exclusively for the public good and not for private or commercial gain. This is the crux of this bill. Hence, the bill limits the use of data to the purpose of providing ``generalizable knowledge to inform the public health through scientific publication and other forms of public dissemination.'' Strict penalties will be imposed on any unauthorized use of the data including civil money penalties and disqualification from receiving Medicare data for at least 2 years.

CMS will publish criteria used to approve research applications to ensure that those selected are qualified and experienced to conduct analyses and maintain the confidentiality of Medicare information. Researchers will also make public their detailed results and methods within 1 year from completing their studies. They will make available to the public at no charge any tool developed through this program. They must agree not to sell data or create commercial data products using such data and abide by safeguards protecting the confidentiality of the data established by the Secretary.

The final section of the bill ensures that congressional support agencies, including the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service, the Government Accountability Office, and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, also have access to the full range of data they need to carry out their functions and responsibilities. Congress depends on the research and analyses conducted by these agencies to inform our deliberations and decisions on the Medicare Program.

Last year, I worked with Senator Grassley to introduce the Medicare Value-Based Purchasing Act, which establishes a pay for performance system under Medicare. An important element of that system is the collection and reporting of quality measures to CMS and to the public. The bill we are introducing today complements those activities. We can improve health care by allowing Medicare to become a value-based purchaser of services and by reporting quality measures through the Medicare Program. And we can improve health care for all by allowing rigorous health services research to be conducted using the resource of Medicare data.

Mr. President, the Medicare Data Access and Research Act will allow us to expand our knowledge of health care and improve the quality of care for all Americans.

Mr. President, in August of 1802, from his desk in Monticello, President Thomas Jefferson glimpsed the future of the young American economy. He was shaken by what he saw.

Jefferson had just finished reading a book published a year earlier in London. The slim volume was the travel account of Alexander MacKenzie, a young Scotsman working in Great Britain's Canadian colonies.

In June of 1793, MacKenzie had crossed the Continental Divide at a place where it was just 3,000 feet high and easily portaged. Two weeks later, he reached the Pacific Ocean. Using a makeshift paint of vermilion and grease, Mackenzie inscribed his name on a rock to memorialize his discovery, and to claim it for Great Britain.

The economic implications of MacKenzie's discovery were enormous. In his book, MacKenzie urged the British to build on his discovery and develop a passage to the Pacific. Such a passage would give Great Britain control over much of North America's lucrative fur trade and access to the world's markets. Worse, MacKenzie's discovery threatened to stunt America's economic growth in its infancy.

MacKenzie's book lit a fire under Jefferson. That summer, he talked of little else. He enlisted the most qualified man he knew. And with him, Jefferson devised a plan for action. It was a plan to counter the economic threat from the north. It was a plan to safeguard America's economic future.

That December, President Jefferson presented his plan to Congress. It was America's first economic competitiveness plan. It called for one officer, a dozen soldiers, and $2,500.

Thomas Jefferson's economic competitiveness plan of 1802 has become better known as the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Today, we see that expedition as one of our Nation's great displays of ambition and courage. And today, we see that it laid the foundation of the United States as we know it.

Today, America faces a new competitive challenge. Our challenge is not over control of the fur trade. It comes not from an imperial power or its colony. It is not a race for territory in unexplored lands. Our challenge is far more complex. And the need to act is even more urgent.

America today faces a world more integrated, more interdependent, and more intensely competitive than ever in our history. In this world, it is our challenge to succeed. It is our challenge to leave our children and grandchildren an economy that is better than the one that we inherited.

We seek an economy that is not laden with debt, but bursting with opportunity. We seek an economy that plants the seeds of innovation and education today, knowing that generations far in the future will harvest their bounty. We seek an economy whose workers are increasingly productive, and whose skills are continuously sharpened.

Our challenge is to create an economy in which investment in our workers is our greatest asset, not our heaviest burden. Our challenge is to create an economy known for what it will be, rather than for what it was.

To realize this competitive economy, we must--like Jefferson--rise to the challenge. We must--like Jefferson--look to unknown horizons and march out to meet them. We must call upon our greatest minds and set them to creating a plan. And we must dedicate the resources necessary to implement that plan.

I have spent much of the past year planning a comprehensive competitiveness agenda. In February, I introduced the Trade Competitiveness Act, a bill to open markets and keep a level playing field for America's ranchers, farmers, and businesses.

In March, I introduced the Energy Competitiveness Act, to fund cutting edge research in energy while making alternative energies more affordable.

In April, I introduced the Savings Competitiveness Act, to create savings today, so that we may invest and innovate tomorrow.

In May, I introduced the Research Competitiveness Act, to give start- ups and universities better access to capital for research and development, and to improve and make permanent the R&D tax credit.

Today, I am introducing the fifth in this series of bills: the Education Competitiveness Act of 2006. Just as education is the foundation of a competitive economy, this legislation is the foundation of my competitiveness agenda.

Thomas Jefferson knew that it was not enough to send Lewis and Clark to the Pacific Ocean without the means to return. Lewis and Clark knew that the discoveries and contacts that they made had to be lasting to make a difference for our economy.

The Education Competitiveness Act is also designed to have a lasting effect. This legislation embraces education in its earliest stages, following through to continuing education and worker training. Each provision is designed with maximum flexibility to meet our States' unique needs. It is a bill that recognizes excellence, welcomes innovation, and rewards ambition.

The Education Competitiveness Act has seven important components.

First, it recognizes that our Nation needs to continue to bring quality teachers into the classroom. The bill funds 100,000 scholarships for future teachers of languages, early education, and science. It creates incentives for teachers to serve in rural and underserved areas. And it rapidly expands funding to advanced placement and international baccalaureate programs.

Second, the bill recognizes that early education is widely considered to be one of the best education investments that money can buy. The bill creates a flexible program of matching grants to build a national system of universal, voluntary prekindergarten. The bill sets out benchmarks for quality and provides help for States to make sure that their teachers are the best that they can be.

Third, the bill helps students to go the extra mile in their studies, by offering States the means to expand afterschool programs in everything from college test preparation to drug prevention. Summer programs get students out of the classroom for hands-on experience in science, technology, mathematics, and engineering.

Fourth, the bill looks to the needs of tomorrow's workforce. That workforce will increasingly demand technical skills based in math, science, and engineering. The bill provides a free college education to any student wishing to study science, technology, math, or engineering. In return, the student must work 4 years in that field of study. The bill offers States matching grants to establish and expand specialty math, science, and technology schools. And the bill makes young promising scientists eligible for cash grants to continue their research.

Fifth, the bill addresses the chronic neglect of our Nation's Indian education. The bill fully funds Indian colleges and makes a real commitment to the Johnson O'Malley program. The bill also increases the Pell grant to $6,000. Eighty percent of Montana's students rely on financial aid, including Pell grants.

Sixth, the Education Competitiveness Act allows American workers to continue learning. The bill funds programs to link businesses and schools, to give workers the skills that they need. Where universities and community colleges are too far away, distance learning grants will help bridge that gap.

Finally, the bill's tax provisions grant greater access to education. The bill starts by simplifying confusing tax credits and combining them into a single refundable higher education credit of up to $2,000 per student. The bill eases the burden of loan repayment by permitting graduates to deduct more of the interest paid on their student loans. And the bill increases the deductions for charitable contributions to schools as well as teachers' expenses in classrooms.

Taken together, these seven components form a bill that is both comprehensive and responsible. It is a bill that would help to secure a more competitive American economy.

I look forward to returning to the floor to describe each title in greater detail. I also look forward to discussing these proposals with my colleagues.

The Education Competitiveness Act sets out a bold agenda, to be sure. Some of its rewards may only be reaped decades from now. Some of its benefits may only be realized by our grandchildren. But I firmly believe that this is an agenda that we must begin to implement today.

Like the journey of Lewis and Clark 200 years ago, this is an agenda that portends discovery and rewards for America. It is an agenda that promises a passage to a new nation. I urge my colleagues to join me as we advance to this future, and join me in sponsoring the Education Competitiveness Act.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join Chairman Grassley in introducing the Medicare Data Access and Research Act. This bill will take an important step to advance the safety, efficacy, and quality of health care services delivered to people under the Medicare Program and it will help improve the care delivered to all Americans.

This bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, to make Medicare data accessible to Federal health agencies and the health services research community for the purpose of conducting studies that will serve the public health. As the largest single payer of health care services in the United States--covering over 40 million lives, 70 million hospital days, and processing nearly a billion physician claims per year--Medicare collects and maintains a wealth of information on the health services delivered to a significant portion of the population. This information has been a national resource for research and analysis of health care. And with the addition of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, it will be the most comprehensive resource our Nation has to study the effects of diseases and the treatments we have for them.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service, CMS, currently releases certain Medicare data to the public and more comprehensive data to the research community. This bill would build on current activities by requiring CMS to link hospital claims, physician claims, and other relevant information to data collected under the new Medicare drug benefit.

In addition, the Secretary will provide yearly access to the linked Medicare dataset to all Federal health agencies within the department, such as the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, and the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research. These agencies will enter into data use agreements with CMS to ensure that the type and level of Medicare data shared is appropriate, that the agencies conduct research in accordance with their missions and the purpose of furthering the public health, and that the privacy of the data is protected. The goal is to give Federal health agencies another tool to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and quality of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries--a large segment of the health system.

This bill also provides public health researchers access to the linked Medicare dataset. Expanding access to Medicare data will open up a new era in our health system. It will enable scientists to more quickly identify both short- and long-term safety concerns with drug regimens and health treatments. It will enable more treatments to be compared. And it will promote more development of guidelines, so providers and patients know more about what works best.

Some may argue that access to linked Medicare data should not be limited to researchers and should be available for commercial purposes. But the full Medicare database should be used exclusively for the public good and not for private or commercial gain. This is the crux of this bill. Hence, the bill limits the use of data to the purpose of providing ``generalizable knowledge to inform the public health through scientific publication and other forms of public dissemination.'' Strict penalties will be imposed on any unauthorized use of the data including civil money penalties and disqualification from receiving Medicare data for at least 2 years.

CMS will publish criteria used to approve research applications to ensure that those selected are qualified and experienced to conduct analyses and maintain the confidentiality of Medicare information. Researchers will also make public their detailed results and methods within 1 year from completing their studies. They will make available to the public at no charge any tool developed through this program. They must agree not to sell data or create commercial data products using such data and abide by safeguards protecting the confidentiality of the data established by the Secretary.

The final section of the bill ensures that congressional support agencies, including the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service, the Government Accountability Office, and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, also have access to the full range of data they need to carry out their functions and responsibilities. Congress depends on the research and analyses conducted by these agencies to inform our deliberations and decisions on the Medicare Program.

Last year, I worked with Senator Grassley to introduce the Medicare Value-Based Purchasing Act, which establishes a pay for performance system under Medicare. An important element of that system is the collection and reporting of quality measures to CMS and to the public. The bill we are introducing today complements those activities. We can improve health care by allowing Medicare to become a value-based purchaser of services and by reporting quality measures through the Medicare Program. And we can improve health care for all by allowing rigorous health services research to be conducted using the resource of Medicare data.

Mr. President, the Medicare Data Access and Research Act will allow us to expand our knowledge of health care and improve the quality of care for all Americans.

Mr. President, in August of 1802, from his desk in Monticello, President Thomas Jefferson glimpsed the future of the young American economy. He was shaken by what he saw.

Jefferson had just finished reading a book published a year earlier in London. The slim volume was the travel account of Alexander MacKenzie, a young Scotsman working in Great Britain's Canadian colonies.

In June of 1793, MacKenzie had crossed the Continental Divide at a place where it was just 3,000 feet high and easily portaged. Two weeks later, he reached the Pacific Ocean. Using a makeshift paint of vermilion and grease, Mackenzie inscribed his name on a rock to memorialize his discovery, and to claim it for Great Britain.

The economic implications of MacKenzie's discovery were enormous. In his book, MacKenzie urged the British to build on his discovery and develop a passage to the Pacific. Such a passage would give Great Britain control over much of North America's lucrative fur trade and access to the world's markets. Worse, MacKenzie's discovery threatened to stunt America's economic growth in its infancy.

MacKenzie's book lit a fire under Jefferson. That summer, he talked of little else. He enlisted the most qualified man he knew. And with him, Jefferson devised a plan for action. It was a plan to counter the economic threat from the north. It was a plan to safeguard America's economic future.

That December, President Jefferson presented his plan to Congress. It was America's first economic competitiveness plan. It called for one officer, a dozen soldiers, and $2,500.

Thomas Jefferson's economic competitiveness plan of 1802 has become better known as the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Today, we see that expedition as one of our Nation's great displays of ambition and courage. And today, we see that it laid the foundation of the United States as we know it.

Today, America faces a new competitive challenge. Our challenge is not over control of the fur trade. It comes not from an imperial power or its colony. It is not a race for territory in unexplored lands. Our challenge is far more complex. And the need to act is even more urgent.

America today faces a world more integrated, more interdependent, and more intensely competitive than ever in our history. In this world, it is our challenge to succeed. It is our challenge to leave our children and grandchildren an economy that is better than the one that we inherited.

We seek an economy that is not laden with debt, but bursting with opportunity. We seek an economy that plants the seeds of innovation and education today, knowing that generations far in the future will harvest their bounty. We seek an economy whose workers are increasingly productive, and whose skills are continuously sharpened.

Our challenge is to create an economy in which investment in our workers is our greatest asset, not our heaviest burden. Our challenge is to create an economy known for what it will be, rather than for what it was.

To realize this competitive economy, we must--like Jefferson--rise to the challenge. We must--like Jefferson--look to unknown horizons and march out to meet them. We must call upon our greatest minds and set them to creating a plan. And we must dedicate the resources necessary to implement that plan.

I have spent much of the past year planning a comprehensive competitiveness agenda. In February, I introduced the Trade Competitiveness Act, a bill to open markets and keep a level playing field for America's ranchers, farmers, and businesses.

In March, I introduced the Energy Competitiveness Act, to fund cutting edge research in energy while making alternative energies more affordable.

In April, I introduced the Savings Competitiveness Act, to create savings today, so that we may invest and innovate tomorrow.

In May, I introduced the Research Competitiveness Act, to give start- ups and universities better access to capital for research and development, and to improve and make permanent the R&D tax credit.

Today, I am introducing the fifth in this series of bills: the Education Competitiveness Act of 2006. Just as education is the foundation of a competitive economy, this legislation is the foundation of my competitiveness agenda.

Thomas Jefferson knew that it was not enough to send Lewis and Clark to the Pacific Ocean without the means to return. Lewis and Clark knew that the discoveries and contacts that they made had to be lasting to make a difference for our economy.

The Education Competitiveness Act is also designed to have a lasting effect. This legislation embraces education in its earliest stages, following through to continuing education and worker training. Each provision is designed with maximum flexibility to meet our States' unique needs. It is a bill that recognizes excellence, welcomes innovation, and rewards ambition.

The Education Competitiveness Act has seven important components.

First, it recognizes that our Nation needs to continue to bring quality teachers into the classroom. The bill funds 100,000 scholarships for future teachers of languages, early education, and science. It creates incentives for teachers to serve in rural and underserved areas. And it rapidly expands funding to advanced placement and international baccalaureate programs.

Second, the bill recognizes that early education is widely considered to be one of the best education investments that money can buy. The bill creates a flexible program of matching grants to build a national system of universal, voluntary prekindergarten. The bill sets out benchmarks for quality and provides help for States to make sure that their teachers are the best that they can be.

Third, the bill helps students to go the extra mile in their studies, by offering States the means to expand afterschool programs in everything from college test preparation to drug prevention. Summer programs get students out of the classroom for hands-on experience in science, technology, mathematics, and engineering.

Fourth, the bill looks to the needs of tomorrow's workforce. That workforce will increasingly demand technical skills based in math, science, and engineering. The bill provides a free college education to any student wishing to study science, technology, math, or engineering. In return, the student must work 4 years in that field of study. The bill offers States matching grants to establish and expand specialty math, science, and technology schools. And the bill makes young promising scientists eligible for cash grants to continue their research.

Fifth, the bill addresses the chronic neglect of our Nation's Indian education. The bill fully funds Indian colleges and makes a real commitment to the Johnson O'Malley program. The bill also increases the Pell grant to $6,000. Eighty percent of Montana's students rely on financial aid, including Pell grants.

Sixth, the Education Competitiveness Act allows American workers to continue learning. The bill funds programs to link businesses and schools, to give workers the skills that they need. Where universities and community colleges are too far away, distance learning grants will help bridge that gap.

Finally, the bill's tax provisions grant greater access to education. The bill starts by simplifying confusing tax credits and combining them into a single refundable higher education credit of up to $2,000 per student. The bill eases the burden of loan repayment by permitting graduates to deduct more of the interest paid on their student loans. And the bill increases the deductions for charitable contributions to schools as well as teachers' expenses in classrooms.

Taken together, these seven components form a bill that is both comprehensive and responsible. It is a bill that would help to secure a more competitive American economy.

I look forward to returning to the floor to describe each title in greater detail. I also look forward to discussing these proposals with my colleagues.

The Education Competitiveness Act sets out a bold agenda, to be sure. Some of its rewards may only be reaped decades from now. Some of its benefits may only be realized by our grandchildren. But I firmly believe that this is an agenda that we must begin to implement today.

Like the journey of Lewis and Clark 200 years ago, this is an agenda that portends discovery and rewards for America. It is an agenda that promises a passage to a new nation. I urge my colleagues to join me as we advance to this future, and join me in sponsoring the Education Competitiveness Act.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Iowa. I thank all my friends, especially Senator Reid and Senator Grassley. I had no idea I cast 10,000 votes until someone said it was the 10,000th about 15 minutes ago.

I have several thoughts. No. 1, it is such a privilege to represent the State of Montana. I have 900,000 of the world's best bosses. You could not ask for better employers than the people of the State of Montana. I am so grateful to have the privilege to serve my 900,000 constituents.

Second, I am reminded a little bit of years past. There have been very great Senators serving this body, a time when there was more agreement, more bipartisanship. It was not quite as partisan as it is today. I hope over the next 1,000 votes, or however many are cast, we move to a time of more bipartisanship; that we do work together.

Senator Grassley and I are very lucky to work closely together. I am honored to work with him. There have been a lot of major votes I am proud of. There are a couple, as I look back, I wish I had not cast. But that's life. We do the very best we can, and most of us do a pretty good job.

I thank my friends. I thank my colleagues. I thank everyone else who is part of the larger Senate for all that you do. It means a lot to me.

Mr. President, I wish to read a letter I just received today from a representative of an American company that employs millions of workers, including hundreds in my home State of Montana.

He writes:

As one of the Nation's largest employers of people coming

off welfare, we have kept our end of the bargain and

continued hiring throughout this year with the understanding

that the Work Opportunity and Welfare to Work tax credits

would be extended.

He continues:

We now face a significant increase in our tax liability and

will have to book corresponding losses to our profitability

unless you act now. The ongoing frustration is taking its

toll on us.

Indeed, the frustration over the 2005 expired tax incentives is taking its toll on millions of Americans.

This letter is from the parent company of T.J. Maxx, Marshalls, HomeGoods, A.J. Wright, and Bob's Stores. That company likely has stores in each State in the Union and each congressional district. These are real people, real jobs, and real money on the line. Yet some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have taken these popular tax credits hostage. In fact, some have openly referred to these credits as ``hostages.'' Some have said that sometimes you have to kill hostages to be taken seriously. It is time that we end these threats and get back to the business of legislating.

Let me remind everyone how many times these popular tax cuts have been set aside. We first passed them as part of the tax reconciliation bill last November. They passed this body, but they were set aside in order to accommodate provisions in that tax bill that were expiring, not in 2005 but expiring 4 years later in 2009. Then we were promised they would surely be included in the pension conference, the next tax vehicle. Once again, they were pulled out at the last moment after weeks of negotiations and haggling.

The package we are discussing is a compromise package. It passed the House. It does not include everything I would want, but it is what we agreed to months ago, and it is what we should have enacted months ago.

This package includes the research and development tax credit. I remind my colleagues that companies are now beginning to restate their financials. Why? Because Congress has not extended the R&D tax credit that expired at the end of last year. We have letters from companies saying they have to restate, but they had the R&D credit in the past. They have to start restating their financials. It is not in the law now. If we were going to extend it, we should have extended it a long time ago.

The package includes the deduction for schoolteachers who buy supplies for their students. Of all things to give our teachers. Think of them, who buy supplies for their students. They are supposed to get a deduction. It expired last year. My Lord, here we are already at the beginning of the school year and the deduction is not there for them.

The package includes the tuition deduction for college students trying to go back to school. It includes the deduction for State and local sales taxes. Just think. And it includes other widely supported tax cuts.

If we do not enact these provisions, then millions of Americans will have their taxes increased. This Congress has been zealous in preventing tax increases several years into the future. We ought to prevent these tax increases which are happening today.

I urge my colleagues to pass a clean, retroactive extension, back to the end of 2005, of these popular credits for businesses, schoolteachers, employers who hire welfare workers, and all the people who are depending on us to do the right thing. Let us end the frustration today.

Mr. President, this amendment has more than 30 cosponsors. I imagine there would be many more if we asked them. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Bingaman, Feinstein, and Kennedy be added as cosponsors. I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Obama, Senator Reed from Rhode Island, Senator Akaka, and Senator Inouye be added as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 326, H.R. 4096; that the Senate adopt my amendment that is at the desk, the substance of which is the agreed- upon tax extender package; that the bill be read a third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the Senate return to the port security bill; and that all this occur without intervening action.

Mr. President, before the Senator objects, may I make one comment?

I ask to have the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the views of the majority leader. I must remind all of our colleagues that we have been down that road a couple of times and that, in my judgment, they are not going to fly.

I support the provisions that are in that package. This Senate has voted a couple of times, and it is my strongly held view in talking with Senators that it just is not going to get passed. In the meantime, it is important to get something passed that is so important to so many people.

I hear what the majority leader is saying, but it is my judgment that sometimes it is better to go on and do legislation that can get enacted and not stick around and try to delude ourselves into passing bills that cannot get passed. That is why I am bringing this up today, because we can get this passed today, I am quite confident. Regrettably, the provisions the majority leader mentioned cannot be passed, and therefore we should not delay the passage of something that is so important to so many people.

Mr. President, I rise to take a moment to recognize that today is the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks. That day 5 years ago changed the way we all think about the world. The consequences were profound. We learned that we must be prepared for threats we cannot even imagine.

That is why our work here today on the Port Security Improvement Act is so important. I was pleased to help write the Port Security Improvement Act of 2006, the amendment before the Senate today. I am proud of our work. Working together, we have crafted legislation to help keep our ports safe and our economy strong. The legislation strikes a balance. It protects Americans, and it preserves the free flow of commerce upon which our prosperity depends.

Last year, nearly 11 million containers came into our country. That is more than 30,000 containers every day. They arrive at more than 300 ports all across our borders. That number of containers is expected to double over the next 3 years. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency is responsible for ensuring that not one of those millions of containers--not one--carries with it anything that could harm us. It is a daunting task. It would be tempting to say we should slow this torrent of containers to a trickle. It would be tempting to say we should allow Customs and Border Protection unlimited time to do its job to protect us from harm, but slowing trade to a trickle would also cause America great harm. It would cripple our economy.

Ensuring security is only half of the work of Customs and Border Protection. The agency is also charged with carrying on the centuries- old responsibility of its predecessor, the U.S. Customs Service, to facilitate the commerce so critical to keeping our economy strong.

Cross-border trade accounts for fully a quarter of the American economy--one-quarter. How, then, do we keep this flow of trade both safe and smooth? I believe this legislation tries to do just that. We have given Customs and Border Protection more tools and resources to accomplish both of its missions.

We authorize $1.2 billion in port security grant assistance, and we authorize another $750 million for key programs such as the Container Security Initiative and the automated targeting system.

We also authorize funds to fulfill the promise of the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism. We provide the personnel to validate supply chain security for the thousands of American importers eager to participate in the program and keep their cargo moving.

I also strongly support testing and deployment of fully integrated container scanning systems capable of increasing the security of containers in foreign ports while maintaining or improving the processing time of just-in-time cargoes. The more we can know about a container before it gets to America, the safer we all will be.

But technology is not a panacea. We need people at our land and seaports to detect and deter contraband or unlawful persons from entering our country. My State of Montana is a border State. In Montana, we have new cargo examination equipment, but we don't have new personnel to run it.

We need people to ensure the robust enforcement of our trade laws and trade agreements upon which American companies and workers rely. That

is why, in the 2002 Homeland Security Act, Congress prohibited any diminution in Customs trade facilitation and enforcement functions. And we prohibited any reduction or consolidation of the personnel performing those functions.

In violation of that act, personnel dedicated to revenue collection and trade enforcement are increasingly being asked to assist with port security-related functions for which they are neither trained nor equipped. Since 2003, trade personnel numbers decreased by as much as 15 percent.

This legislation reverses this damaging trend by requiring Customs and Border Protection to restore personnel vital to its commercial mission. At the same time, we ensure sufficient numbers of security- focused personnel by adding uniformed officers at every one of our Nation's ports. We can do both, and we need to do both.

The legislation also creates an Office of International Trade within Customs and Border Protection. The new office would be headed by an Assistant Commissioner for International Trade, reporting directly to the Commissioner.

This office is responsible for supervising and giving policy direction to employees before the agency's commercial and revenue functions. This structural change is designed to give voice to the concerns of commerce. It will guarantee that the concerns of commerce receive due consideration.

And an International Trade Policy Committee within Customs and Border Protection will assist the Commissioner in coordinating with the Assistant Secretary for Policy. The committee will help them implement policies related to the commercial customs and trade facilitation functions within the Agency.

Mr. President, if security at our ports is compromised, then the international trade that drives our Nation's economy could grind to a halt. But if security at our ports does not protect the overall health of the international commerce system, then that would not provide Americans real security. We need to do both.

I am very pleased with the legislation before us. We still need to address other critical transportation security issues, such as rail and transit security, which this legislation doesn't do. But the pending amendment is a critical component of a national strategy on homeland and economic security.

This legislation would not have been completed without the tireless efforts of my colleagues. I thank and commend Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens especially for his very helpful work, Murray, Collins, Lieberman, Coleman, and my dear friend, the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley.

Too many staff to name have worked countless hours to get this legislation ready, and I thank them.

Working together, I believe we have created something that both safeguards our Nation's ports and protects American prosperity. America needs us to do both. That is why America needs us to pass this important legislation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns with the Finance Committee staff be allowed on the Senate floor today and for the duration of the debate on the Port Security Improvement Act: John Lageson, Tory Cyr, and Brett Youngerman.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 15 minutes to speak in morning business.

Mr. President, west of Baghdad in Iraq's Al Anbar Province, the 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion of the 1st Marine Division rested for the night. On Saturday, June 29, a suicide bomber crashed his vehicle into a barrack. The structure collapsed. Four marines died. Among them was a 28-year-old corporal named Phillip Baucus. He is my nephew.

When I first took my wife Wanda to the family ranch many years ago, about 23, young Phillip, 5 or 6 years old, received Wanda. He walked up to Wanda and said: Wanda, welcome to the ranch. He had a wildflower in his hand and he gave it to Wanda. That is how he was.

Wanda and I had the sad duty at Dover Air Force Base to receive Phillip's casket. When we asked, they said, no, we could not touch his casket, but they reconsidered--the colonel did--and said, yes, it was all right for Wanda and let Wanda touch Phillip's casket. Beneath the flag that draped the casket, Wanda slipped a wildflower. That is how she is. North of Helena, in Montana's Lewis and Clark County, Phillip came to his final rest. On the afternoon of Sunday, August 6, more than 500 Montanans gathered under the willow trees of the family ranch to remember Phillip.

A Chinook helicopter flew overhead, a massive American flag draped below it. White doves were released into the sky. A bagpipe played ``Amazing Grace,'' and the ``Marine Corps Hymn.'' Bugles played ``Taps.'' The funeral ended with a family tradition, a tradition that Phillip loved. We packed 2 pounds of black gunpowder, fired an anvil weighing about 60 pounds several hundred feet into the air. It fell to the ground with a heavy thud.

Marines folded the flag that had covered Phillip's casket into a triangle and handed it to his widow Katherine. Phillip and Katherine had been married at that very same place less than a year before. Phillip's Marine colleague, Sergeant Raymond Rios, spoke to Phillip saying: ``Baucus, you will always be here with every shadow, the sun shining and the trees blowing.''

My brother John and I planted two trees there a few weeks ago on the ranch in memory of Phillip. They will blow in the winds and grow in the sun there in his memory. It was at that ranch where he was laid to rest on the same mountain where my father lies.

In the days since, I have been moved by the hundreds of handwritten notes I have received from Montanans, friends, and colleagues. I have been moved by these many tributes. In the Native American culture there is no greater honor than dying for your community, being a warrior. American Indians have answered this country's call to service in numbers far greater than their fair share of the population. When injured or killed in war, Native American service men and women are honored as fallen warriors. Their praises are sung before every powwow and special occasion.

I visited several Indian tribes last August. Time after time, I was honored when the tribal leaders honored Phillip as a fallen warrior. Following one tribal council meeting, an elderly grandmother asked if she could honor Phillip. She told me she had two grandsons in Iraq. She wanted to express her condolences to my family. She had made a quilt with the American flags interspersed throughout the quilt for the fallen warrior. She asked me to turn around. And reaching on her tiptoes, she draped the quilt around my shoulders. Then she embraced me.

(The remarks of Mr. Baucus pertaining to the introduction of S. 3865 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my very good friend from Nevada. I thank you very much. And I thank all my colleagues very much. We are one big family here in the Senate and in the country, and we are a great country. We will see our way through all this.

Mr. President, I wish to talk about one tribute we can make to the brave men and women who have put their lives on the line and returned home wounded. We need to ensure that those who have sacrificed for our country receive their due benefits. We need to see that they are taken care of when they return home.

As of July 2006, nearly 20,000 members of our Armed Forces have been wounded in action in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Many of these soldiers are now permanently disabled. Of these brave soldiers who have been wounded, nearly 5,000 are members of the National Guard and Reserves. Our National Guard and Reserves are carrying a huge burden in our current conflicts abroad.

Ninety-five percent of America's National Guard combat battalions and special operations have been mobilized since September 11, 2001.

Many of these wounded soldiers come from rural States such as my home State of Montana. In Montana, we have the highest proportion of veterans per capita of any State. According to the most recent census, veterans account for nearly one out of every six people in Montana. And veterans and families of veterans constitute a significant portion of the population in rural States throughout the country.

When not deployed, many National Guardsmen and reservists in my home State support their families with second and even third jobs. At any time, they can be deployed overseas, to our borders, or even to aid with national disasters such as hurricanes or forest fires. If they are injured or disabled, however, many become unable to perform the jobs they did before deployment. They will need to transition into

a new job or career. It is our duty to provide the proper means for soldiers to make that transition. It is our duty to help them to live as independent citizens. It seems that the opposite is true.

Since August 2002, the share of veterans collecting unemployment insurance has nearly doubled. During any given year, half a million veterans across the Nation experience homelessness. We are not providing enough resources for veterans looking for work. We are too often failing our injured and our disabled veterans.

Many seriously injured and disabled veterans simply do not know what they are going to do once they return home. We need to help these young men and women. That is why today I offer a special tribute.

Today I am introducing the Help Our Patriots Employment Act of 2006, and I call it the HOPE Act. The HOPE Act would provide a tax incentive to employers to hire service-connected disabled veterans, and the HOPE Act would increase funding for job training transition services for injured and disabled veterans.

The work opportunity and the welfare-to-work tax credits expired at the end of 2005. We all hope these credits can be extended soon. They have gone without extension for too long now. In addition, I introduced legislation that would permanently extend and improve upon the work opportunity and welfare-to-work tax credits.

My HOPE Act provides employers with a graduated tax credit equal to 25 percent of wages for disabled veterans working between 120 hours and 399 hours, and a 40-percent tax credit on wages for disabled veterans working more than 400 hours, on up to $12,000 in wages per employee. In addition to this tax credit for businesses, my bill would increase funding for the Veterans' Employment and Training Service Program, the VETS Program, under the Department of Labor.

In my home State of Montana, the VETS Program has two staff members to cover the entire State. Montana covers more than 145,000 square miles. It is simply not possible for this essential program to reach every veteran who needs career help--not with two people.

For many injured veterans, it will be a long journey simply to get back on their feet. My legislation will not address all their needs, but it will help. One thing is clear: This problem is not going away. It is getting worse. That is why we need to make sure we are doing everything we can to help injured and disabled veterans.

These heroes have given so much for our country--so much. They have sacrificed so much on the battlefield. They return to a life much different from the one they left. We need to ensure they are given the resources to transition and succeed in life when they return home.

Mr. President, let me close where I began. Let me honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. I close by reading the names of those from Montana who have died fighting for our country since September 11:

PVT Krostofor Stonesifer, SGT Michael Bews, LT Edward Saltz, PVT Owen Witt, LTC Benjamin Watson, CPL Dean Pratt, CPL Kane Funke, SGT Aaron Holleyman, CPL Nathan Wood, SGT Robbie McNary, CPL Bill Ellingham, CPL Josh Timmerman, SGT Jack Tankersly, CPL Steve Slavik, CPL Nicholas Bloem, LT Josh Hyland, SGT Travis Arndt, PVT Andrew Bedard, CPT Michael MacKinnon, CPL Raleigh Smith, and CPL Phillip Baucus.

May their memory be a blessing in the lives of all of our families. May our Nation never forget their sacrifice. And may we always honor those who have fought to defend our freedom.

Mr. President, I wish to talk about one tribute we can make to the brave men and women who have put their lives on the line and returned home wounded. We need to ensure that those who have sacrificed for our country receive their due benefits. We need to see that they are taken care of when they return home.

As of July 2006, nearly 20,000 members of our Armed Forces have been wounded in action in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Many of these soldiers are now permanently disabled. Of these brave soldiers who have been wounded, nearly 5,000 are members of the National Guard and Reserves. Our National Guard and Reserves are carrying a huge burden in our current conflicts abroad.

Ninety-five percent of America's National Guard combat battalions and special operations have been mobilized since September 11, 2001.

Many of these wounded soldiers come from rural States such as my home State of Montana. In Montana, we have the highest proportion of veterans per capita of any State. According to the most recent census, veterans account for nearly one out of every six people in Montana. And veterans and families of veterans constitute a significant portion of the population in rural States throughout the country.

When not deployed, many National Guardsmen and reservists in my home State support their families with second and even third jobs. At any time, they can be deployed overseas, to our borders, or even to aid with national disasters such as hurricanes or forest fires. If they are injured or disabled, however, many become unable to perform the jobs they did before deployment. They will need to transition into

a new job or career. It is our duty to provide the proper means for soldiers to make that transition. It is our duty to help them to live as independent citizens. It seems that the opposite is true.

Since August 2002, the share of veterans collecting unemployment insurance has nearly doubled. During any given year, half a million veterans across the Nation experience homelessness. We are not providing enough resources for veterans looking for work. We are too often failing our injured and our disabled veterans.

Many seriously injured and disabled veterans simply do not know what they are going to do once they return home. We need to help these young men and women. That is why today I offer a special tribute.

Today I am introducing the Help Our Patriots Employment Act of 2006, and I call it the HOPE Act. The HOPE Act would provide a tax incentive to employers to hire service-connected disabled veterans, and the HOPE Act would increase funding for job training transition services for injured and disabled veterans.

The work opportunity and the welfare-to-work tax credits expired at the end of 2005. We all hope these credits can be extended soon. They have gone without extension for too long now. In addition, I introduced legislation that would permanently extend and improve upon the work opportunity and welfare-to-work tax credits.

My HOPE Act provides employers with a graduated tax credit equal to 25 percent of wages for disabled veterans working between 120 hours and 399 hours, and a 40-percent tax credit on wages for disabled veterans working more than 400 hours, on up to $12,000 in wages per employee. In addition to this tax credit for businesses, my bill would increase funding for the Veterans' Employment and Training Service Program, the VETS Program, under the Department of Labor.

In my home State of Montana, the VETS Program has two staff members to cover the entire State. Montana covers more than 145,000 square miles. It is simply not possible for this essential program to reach every veteran who needs career help--not with two people.

For many injured veterans, it will be a long journey simply to get back on their feet. My legislation will not address all their needs, but it will help. One thing is clear: This problem is not going away. It is getting worse. That is why we need to make sure we are doing everything we can to help injured and disabled veterans.

These heroes have given so much for our country--so much. They have sacrificed so much on the battlefield. They return to a life much different from the one they left. We need to ensure they are given the resources to transition and succeed in life when they return home.

Mr. President, let me close where I began. Let me honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. I close by reading the names of those from Montana who have died fighting for our country since September 11:

PVT Krostofor Stonesifer, SGT Michael Bews, LT Edward Saltz, PVT Owen Witt, LTC Benjamin Watson, CPL Dean Pratt, CPL Kane Funke, SGT Aaron Holleyman, CPL Nathan Wood, SGT Robbie McNary, CPL Bill Ellingham, CPL Josh Timmerman, SGT Jack Tankersly, CPL Steve Slavik, CPL Nicholas Bloem, LT Josh Hyland, SGT Travis Arndt, PVT Andrew Bedard, CPT Michael MacKinnon, CPL Raleigh Smith, and CPL Phillip Baucus.

May their memory be a blessing in the lives of all of our families. May our Nation never forget their sacrifice. And may we always honor those who have fought to defend our freedom.