Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, I introduce with Senator Gordon Smith a bill to grant Vietnam permanent normal trade relations status.

Thirty-one years ago, the lights went out on the relationship between the United States and Vietnam. Diplomatic relations were broken off, and trade ceased. The story between our two countries became one of refugees, prisoners of war, and soldiers missing in action. Hostility and mistrust prevailed. Normalization was a dream of the visionary or the fool.

In 1991--16 years after the last helicopters took off from the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon--flickers of reconciliation emerged out of the darkness. In April of that year, President George H.W. Bush presented the Vietnamese government with a roadmap for normalization. That started a process of healing that lasted through successive Republican and Democratic administrations and was supported by courageous bipartisan action in the Congress: Between 1991 and 1993, veterans Senator John Kerry, Senator McCain, and former Senator Bob Smith led the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs in the most exhaustive investigation of the status of POWs and MIAs ever conducted. In Feberuary of 1994, President Bill Clinton lifted the trade embargo on Vietnam. 17 months later, in July of 1995, he announced the normalization of political relations with Vietnam. In July of 2000, the United States and Vietnam concluded a comprehensive Bilateral Trade Agreement, allowing the United States to provide, for the first time, nondiscriminatory treatment to Vietnam's products. And just last month, the United States and Vietnam signed another trade agreement, paving the way for Vietnam's accession to the World Trade Organization.

Today, we continue the legacy of reconciliation.

This morning, Senator Smith and I--along with Senators McCain, Kerry, Hagel, Lugar, Murkowski, and Carper--introduced a bill to grant Vietnam Permanent Normal Trade Relations status, or PNTR. I congratulate Representatives Ramstad and Thompson for introducing the House version of this bill.

This is the final step on the road to normalization. With this bill, we will complete the process begun 15 years ago.

Today, we open a new book to the future.

With 83 million people and a median age just over 25 years old, Vietnam is one of the most important emerging markets in Asia. Our trade with Vietnam has grown to 30 times what it was in 1994.

With PNTR, we begin the story of full engagement between the United States and Vietnam. It is a story of economic cooperation and cultural understanding. It is a story where trade and markets overshadow memories of guns and war.

I look forward to working with my Senate and House colleagues, the administration, and all interested parties to pass this historic bill by the August recess.

I ask that a copy of the text of the bill be printed into the Record.

Mr. President, today, I introduce with Senator Gordon Smith a bill to grant Vietnam permanent normal trade relations status.

Thirty-one years ago, the lights went out on the relationship between the United States and Vietnam. Diplomatic relations were broken off, and trade ceased. The story between our two countries became one of refugees, prisoners of war, and soldiers missing in action. Hostility and mistrust prevailed. Normalization was a dream of the visionary or the fool.

In 1991--16 years after the last helicopters took off from the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon--flickers of reconciliation emerged out of the darkness. In April of that year, President George H.W. Bush presented the Vietnamese government with a roadmap for normalization. That started a process of healing that lasted through successive Republican and Democratic administrations and was supported by courageous bipartisan action in the Congress: Between 1991 and 1993, veterans Senator John Kerry, Senator McCain, and former Senator Bob Smith led the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs in the most exhaustive investigation of the status of POWs and MIAs ever conducted. In Feberuary of 1994, President Bill Clinton lifted the trade embargo on Vietnam. 17 months later, in July of 1995, he announced the normalization of political relations with Vietnam. In July of 2000, the United States and Vietnam concluded a comprehensive Bilateral Trade Agreement, allowing the United States to provide, for the first time, nondiscriminatory treatment to Vietnam's products. And just last month, the United States and Vietnam signed another trade agreement, paving the way for Vietnam's accession to the World Trade Organization.

Today, we continue the legacy of reconciliation.

This morning, Senator Smith and I--along with Senators McCain, Kerry, Hagel, Lugar, Murkowski, and Carper--introduced a bill to grant Vietnam Permanent Normal Trade Relations status, or PNTR. I congratulate Representatives Ramstad and Thompson for introducing the House version of this bill.

This is the final step on the road to normalization. With this bill, we will complete the process begun 15 years ago.

Today, we open a new book to the future.

With 83 million people and a median age just over 25 years old, Vietnam is one of the most important emerging markets in Asia. Our trade with Vietnam has grown to 30 times what it was in 1994.

With PNTR, we begin the story of full engagement between the United States and Vietnam. It is a story of economic cooperation and cultural understanding. It is a story where trade and markets overshadow memories of guns and war.

I look forward to working with my Senate and House colleagues, the administration, and all interested parties to pass this historic bill by the August recess.

I ask that a copy of the text of the bill be printed into the Record.

Mr. President, I strongly support the nomination of Susan Schwab to be our next U.S. Trade Representative. I have known and worked with Ambassador Schwab for many years. She has had a stellar career as a trade negotiator, a senior congressional staffer, a businesswoman, and a university administrator and professor.

I recently read a piece about Ambassador Schwab in the Washington Post. That article described her as ``a hard-nosed pragmatist, well versed in arcane trade economics, and a dazzling strategist and negotiator.''

She was described as excelling as ``a strategic thinker and consensus builder . . . able to quickly synthesize the thinking of Congress, the administration and special-interest groups.''

That Washington Post article is 19 years old. It is from July 1987. By that point, Ambassador Schwab had already honed her reputation in the international trade community.

She had already negotiated tricky agriculture agreements in the Tokyo Round. She had already helped draft provisions of U.S. trade law--like Super 301--that became a fixture of U.S. trade policy for the next decade.

She had already attracted both fear and admiration among many of our most recalcitrant trading partners.

Nineteen years later, Ambassador Schwab continues to demonstrate her skill as a seasoned trade negotiator. In her tenure as Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, she has settled one of the most difficult and complicated trade issues--our dispute with Canada over subsidized imports of softwood lumber.

She has worked tirelessly with our trading partners on trade agreements, and she has worked to obtain consensus among the 149 members of the World Trade Organization in the ongoing Doha Round negotiations.

Ambassador Schwab will need all of her skills to carry out the job as U.S. Trade Representative. We have entered one of the most difficult periods in trade policy that I can remember--both with our trading partners and domestically.

At the top of Ambassador Schwab's agenda will be shoring up the Doha Round. Unless something changes soon, these talks are at serious risk of collapse.

Our trading partners continue to believe that America alone must make the concessions necessary for these talks to conclude. They forget that negotiations are two-way. They are give and take.

As I have told Ambassador Schwab, I will not be in a position to support any result out of the Doha Round unless several results are achieved: No. 1, the EU must commit to serious and meaningful reductions in agriculture tariffs; No. 2, Brazil, India, and developing world countries must commit to serious and meaningful reductions in industrial tariffs; and No. 3, our key trading partners must agree to open further their services markets.

Ambassador Schwab will also face serious challenges in our bilateral trade and economic relationship with China. China often makes promises--in the WTO and bilaterally--that it does not always keep. For instance, in April, China promised to lift its ban on U.S. beef. But China still has not done so, and it appears to be in no hurry.

In the coming months, I hope to work with Ambassador Schwab in creating a more sustained, structured, and comprehensive dialogue with China that allows the United States to hold China's feet to the fire on the promises that it makes.

And we also need a better framework to seek out ways to cooperate more effectively on issues of mutual economic interest.

Ambassador Schwab will also be responsible for negotiating the most challenging free-trade agreements to date. Agreements with Korea and Malaysia--our 7th and 10th largest trading partners respectively--hold great promise. But each presents unique and difficult issues that we must address in order to build political support for these agreements at home.

That will be Ambassador Schwab's greatest challenge--building political support for trade at home. It is no secret that support for trade has evaporated.

Since Congress granted this administration trade promotion authority in 2002, Members have been asked to take a series of difficult votes on trade agreements with small countries of limited commercial value.

Since that time, the concerns Members of Congress have expressed about the administration's trade strategy have fallen on deaf ears, and since that time, support for trade among usually protrade constituents has waned considerably.

As a result, when trade promotion authority expires next year, I do not think Congress will renew it without major changes. I do not anticipate new

fast-track authority until Congress, the administration, and all relevant stakeholders are willing to engage in a serious discussion. They need to answer the tough questions that remain unaddressed: questions relating to trade adjustment assistance and other programs to help those who may be hurt by trade, questions about the role of labor in our trade agreements, and questions relating to the relationship between trade and a competitive U.S. economy.

These are hard issues, and Ambassador Schwab will have to face them head-on. But I have full confidence that Ambassador Schwab has the skills, experience, and the guts to tackle them. Indeed, she spent most of the 1980s grappling with very similar issues when she worked for Senator Danforth in both the majority and the minority.

Nineteen years ago, the Washington Post described Susan Schwab as a ``strategic thinker'' and a ``consensus builder.'' We need these skills at the U.S. Trade Representative, now more than ever.

I look forward to working closely with Ambassador Schwab and urge my Colleagues to vote to confirm her today.

Madam President, the Book of Proverbs says:

A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's

children.

Tomorrow, the Senate will vote on whether the Government should have a part in that transaction. Tomorrow, the Senate will vote on whether to move to the consideration of a repeal of the estate tax.

During a particularly tumultuous time in American history, President Ford said:

Truth is the glue that holds government together.

Compromise is the oil that makes government go.

We are not confronted with the same level of rancor today as when President Ford said that. But both of these institutional virtues-- truth and compromise--are as essential today as they were then. To achieve true estate tax relief for our constituents, we will need a heavy dose of each.

The estate tax is a difficult issue. Members on both sides of the debate have strong feelings. Back home, many of us meet with ranchers, farmers, family businesses, and others who feel passionately about the estate tax. Some believe that it is an unfair tax. Others believe that it is an important source of revenue for government programs.

Personally, I believe that the estate tax has caused significant hardship for families in my home state of Montana. I often hear from ranchers and farmers who own land that has become very valuable. Often, they have little cash in their pockets to pay the estate tax when passing their land on to their children. In Montana, like many other places in the West, people are committed to their land. They are committed to their way of life.

Many of my constituents want to pass their ranch or farm on to their children. They do not want it divided up. They do not want it spoiled by developers. Their children want to stay on the land. They want to keep the lifestyle that is so important to them. They love the land. They are stewards of the proud western heritage of ranching and farming. They take their attachment to the land very seriously. And they do not take kindly to the government interfering with their link to the land. This is why I support repeal of the estate tax. From my view, from Montana's view, a tax that forces ranchers to break up their land is a bad tax.

This is my strongly held belief. But I realize that some of my colleagues believe just as strongly that inheritances over a certain value should be subject to tax. I understand that anything is possible. But it appears unlikely that we are going to change many Senators' minds on this issue. Each side is pretty well dug in.

As a consequence, we are short of the votes required to repeal the estate tax outright.

That is why I have been working together with Republicans and Democrats to achieve a compromise on the estate tax. Senator Kyl, in particular has made an important effort to reach a compromise. I commend him.

My goal is to pass a repeal of the estate tax. But if we are not able to reach that goal, at the very least we should reach a resolution that will protect as many Montanans as possible from the estate tax.

I think that we can accomplish that. But we will need time. It will take real effort. It will take concessions. I am committed to that work.

I have met with many Senators from both parties on this issue. Our staffs have been meeting for months. We have been working to address the details, if we reach an agreement. After meeting with Republicans and Democrats on the estate tax, we have considered several proposals that will both increase the exemption for estates subject to the tax, and lower the rates of taxation.

These proposals will not eliminate the estate tax altogether. But they will--at the very least--eliminate the tax for 99.7 percent of Montanans and Americans alike. Only 3 tenths of 1 percent of Americans would have to worry about the tax again. That is a very small number. Only 31 out of nearly 9,000 estates in Montana would be subject to an estate tax in 2006 under the proposals we are discussing.

We are discussing proposals that amount to roughly half of the cost of full repeal. That is the ultimate consensus position. That is the middle.

I think that Senator Kyl and I have made good progress. But I am willing to listen to other ideas that Members have. We should keep this process going. We should continue the work of negotiation. We have not finished our work on a compromise. But even so, the majority leader has decided to hold a vote on the estate tax.

Let's be honest. Tomorrow's vote is thus not a constructive step to actual reform. It is a political exercise. It is a reward to the noisy Washington interest groups that pray on resentment and discord. Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty, on occasion, of forcing votes just to score political points. But that is not a productive way to run the Senate. So what will we be left with tomorrow at the end of this vote? Perhaps more distrust of one side from the other. But we will not have accomplished the goal that many of us in this body seek: true estate tax relief for our constituents.

As our former Majority leader George Mitchell used to say said: ``Do you want to make a statement, or do you want to make law?'' I am committed to making law. I will work together with Republicans and Democrats alike. I will work with anyone in this body to reach a consensus on the estate tax that gives real estate tax relief to Montana families, and importantly, has the votes to pass.

But such a compromise will take time. My hope is that we can return to negotiations after this vote. I hope that then we can bring to those negotiations a renewed sense of purpose and drive to accomplish a true compromise--consistent with the best traditions of this body. We owe this spirit of cooperation to the Senate as an institution. More importantly, we owe it to the ranchers and farmers and families in Montana and across America who expect us to work together for a compromise on the estate tax that will provide real relief--not political statements.

Madam President, let us not just make statements. Let us negotiate. And let us make the law that will end this tax once and for all.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following fellows, law clerks, and interns of the staff of the Finance Committee be allowed on the Senate floor for the duration of the debate on the estate tax: Tiffany Smith, Laura Kellams, Tom Louthan, Christal Edwards, Joseph Adams, and Justin Kraske.

Mr. President, thank you, and I thank my good friend from West Virginia. I know what he is going to speak on. The person he is going to speak about was a great person, a person I very much admired, as I admire the Senator from West Virginia--a wonderful relationship, wonderful, wonderful. It is a model for so many of us in the Senate and the country. I thank my very good friend.

Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I join my colleagues in mourning the passing of a great man, an extraordinary statesman, and a good friend: Senator Lloyd Bentsen.

Lloyd Bentsen was the noblest of Americans. Courtly, thoughtful, and soft-spoken, Senator Bentsen embodied the finest traditions of America.

Lloyd Bentsen and I shared a perspective. It was based on the states that we came from. I used to tease Senator Bentsen that Montana is what Texas would be like, if all the things that Texans say about Texas were true.

We shared an outlook born in the wide open spaces of our great Land. We came from states that are larger than counties in Europe. You can go great distances in Montana or Texas without seeing another soul. And with that comes a view that values our fellow man.

We also shared a view of this Senate. We could not have been more compatible. We shared a goal, always to accomplish something good on behalf of the American people.

We also shared a hallway on the 7th floor of the Hart Senate office building. I had good fortune to get an office next door to Senator Bentsen's. Our two teams were very closely woven together.

Very often I would wonder where in the world my staff was. They would be down the hall talking to Bentsen's staff because they we are so compatible and had such good ideas.

My staff would often go to his for sage advice, as I would go to him. We would often walk over together for votes.

Senator Bentsen was a role model. He was smart, tough, and disciplined. He was always focused. He always maintained his temper. And he always kept his integrity. He was a Senators' Senator.

Lloyd Bentsen was a singular person. He was reserved, even-tempered, and fair. He reserved judgment, learned the facts, and listened to all points of view. And then he would take a strong position. And more often than not, that position would prevail.

Lloyd Bentsen had the strongest commitment to duty. Even after 14 hours of floor work, he would walk into a room for all-night budget negotiations. He would not complain. He would say: ``This is what I signed up for.''.

Lloyd Bentsen contributed greatly to this Country. He served bravely in the Air Force. He served 6 years in the House of Representatives. He served 22 years in this Senate. He served 6 years as chairman of the Finance Committee. And he served 2 years as Secretary of the Treasury.

Lloyd Bentsen stood for responsibility, probity, and civility. He was a champion of sound tax policy. He fought for and achieved some of the most significant deficit reduction in our Nation's history. He played key roles in the 1990 budget summit and President Clinton's 1993 deficit reduction legislation.

And Senator Bentsen was a leader in international trade. We worked closely together for more than a decade, early on, to develop a Democratic position that supported free trade. We did so with an aggressive policy that broke down international trade barriers to American products. We worked closely on a series of initiatives, for at least a decade.

Chairman Bentsen skillfully and successfully worked to win passage of the 1988 Trade and Competitiveness Act. He guided the United States- Canada Free Trade Agreement through the Senate.

And in Texas, he is known as the father of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Senator Bentsen ran against the first President Bush twice. Bentsen ran against and beat Bush in the election for Senator from Texas, in 1970. And later, Senator Bentsen ran with Governor Dukakis on the 1988 Presidential ticket.

But after that election, Chairman Bentsen was still for giving President Bush authority to negotiate trade agreements. He simply thought that it was the right thing for the country.

Senator Bentsen embodied the finest characteristics of public service. Some might say that he embodied a different era of the United States Senate. If that is so, then we are the poorer for having lost it. We are certainly the poorer for having lost him.

Our hearts go out to B.A., and the entire Bentsen family, on their great loss. Lloyd Bentsen was always very sweet and deferential to B.A. He often said the B.A. stood for ``best asset.'' Lloyd and B.A. Bentsen were married for 63 years.

Very often I would see the two of them together. It reminds me of the relationship of Senator and Mrs. Byrd.

They were very close; teasing each other. It was a wonderful relationship to behold. I have many memories of Lloyd and B.A. being together, whether flying on a plane to South America or here in the Senate, wherever.

My heart goes out to you B.A. and to your family.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow wrote:

Were a star quenched on high,

For ages would its light,

Still travelling downward from the sky,

Shine on our mortal sight.

So when a great man dies,

For years beyond our ken,

The light he leaves behind him lies

Upon the paths of men.

Senator Lloyd Bentsen was a great man. And for years beyond our ken, the light that Lloyd Bentsen leaves behind will lie upon the paths of men, upon the paths of the United States, and upon the paths of this Senate.

I very much thank my friend from West Virginia.

She is.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Senate for accepting my amendment to the Immigration Reform Bill which addresses an area that needs more attention--the northern border of the United States. We have 5,526 miles of border between the United States and Canada. This is over double the size of our southern border. Along Montana's 560-mile portion of the border we have remote terrain which is mountainous and difficult to patrol. My amendment will help our Border Patrol cover this vast area by requiring the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a pilot program using unmanned aerial vehicles along the northern border.

In his immigration speech last week, President Bush emphasized that in addition to personnel and training we must also employ the latest technologies. The Border Patrol has already conducted successful tests using UAVs along the southwestern border in Arizona. This was done for surveillance and detection of individuals attempting to enter the U.S. illegally. My amendment requires that some of the UAVs already in the bill be used to run a pilot program on the northern border similar to the program which was conducted on the southern border.

We don't want to compete with our friends along the U.S. border with Mexico, but I want to make it clear that the northern border also needs increased attention. As you can imagine, as the southern border of the U.S. is tightened, our northern border--which used to be America's back door--is quickly becoming the front door.

Customs and Border Patrol reports that their number one concern on the southern border is illegal immigration. What is their number one concern on the northern border? Terrorism. We are all aware that some of the 9/11 highjackers made their way into this country through Canada. In 1999 the ``Millennium Bomber'', Ahmed Ressam, was apprehended on the northern border with a trunk full of explosives. His plan was to blow up Los Angeles International Airport. Now border gangs are going international and admitting having ties to Al-Qaeda and smuggling Al-Qaeda members into the United States. In Montana markings from these gangs have been found in the corrections system--within the walls of our jails and detention facilities.

Surveillance of our ports is being conducted from the Canadian side of the border. It appears that our procedures for checking out vehicles both leaving and entering the United States are being looked at by criminals and it has been reported that these ``dry runs'' are being conducted near Glacier National Park.

All of these activities are made easy due to the wide open space and insufficient numbers of law enforcement along the border. Yet the bill that has been before us has many provisions which are stacked against the security of the northern border. For example, one provision in this bill provides border States with additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement field agents to help with necessary background checks. However, it stipulates that these allocations are not available to States with populations under two million. This makes northern border States Montana, North Dakota, Idaho, Alaska, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine ineligible for assistance.

Now the President has proposed sending our National Guard troops to the southern border. We rely greatly on our National Guard and at a time they are already stretched too thin, it is dangerous for us to lose that resource from our States. More importantly, this is being done at a time when we currently have border patrol agents being detailed from the northern border to the southern border.

The ability of our Border Patrol to successfully carry out their daily duties is of critical importance to the safety of all Americans. This amendment will give us the tools we need to protect our borders. UAVs are a safe alternative to placing civilians in harm's way and by introducing a pilot program that helps us patrol our northern border, we are getting on the right track to fighting the war on terrorism and keeping the home front safe.

Mr. President, on rollcall No. 141, I voted nay. It was my intention to vote yea. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

Mr. President, the resolution I am submitting aims to ensure that charities under the control of Senators can be viewed in the most ethical terms.

Mahatma Gandhi once said: ``Men say that I am a saint losing myself in politics. The fact is that I am a politician trying my hardest to be a saint.''

That sums up the purpose of my resolution. We in the Senate run for office to do good. We try to make the country better. We try to serve. We strive to do the right thing.

As much as we try, however, even innocent gestures can be perceived as self-serving, or at worst, unethical.

Some of us have started charities that we believe help to serve our country and important public needs.

Senators may innocently employ staff who they trust at the charity. Senators may use lawyers who they are familiar with to ensure that requirements are met. Senators may accept

contributions from corporations because the funds will be spent on a worthy cause.

The activities that I have listed may betray nothing more than an innocent effort to carry out charitable works. But the public has a right to be skeptical. The public has a right to know what companies-- that may or may not have business before the Senate--are donating to charities controlled by Senators.

My resolution would not ban Senators from starting charities. But it would address the healthy skepticism that the public has expressed about the rules governing charities controlled by Members of Congress.

As the Washington Post noted in an editorial on Tuesday, March 7 ``[W]hen lawmakers have a personal interest in the charity, the opportunities for abuse are greatly magnified.''

Because of the potential for abuse, and because of the perception of abuse, I believe that rules governing charities controlled by Senators should be ``greatly magnified.''

I am glad that the bill reported by the Homeland Security Committee takes a step to provide more disclosure in this area. The Homeland Security Committee bill would require disclosure of gifts by lobbyists to charities controlled by Members of Congress.

This is a good first step, but I think we can do better.

My resolution would do the following: First, it would require that any gift over $200 to a charity substantially influenced by a Senator be disclosed if the Senator or their senior staff are aware of the gift. While disclosing gifts from lobbyists is important, it is equally imperative that gifts from corporations and individuals are also disclosed.

Second, my resolution prohibits Senators from using a charity they substantially influence for what can be perceived as their personal gain.

How does the resolution do this? Under Senate Rule XXXVII, concerning conflicts of interest, a Senator would be barred from deriving personal gain from a charity that they substantially influence.

The resolution defines personal gain in the following way: (1) When a Senator or their family member is employed by the charity in a paid capacity (2) When a member of the Senator's staff is employed by the charity in a paid capacity (3) When an individual or firm that receives income from the Senator's political action committee serves in a paid capacity to the charity (4) When the charity pays for travel or lodging costs by the Senator on a trip where the Senator also engages in political fund raising (5) And, finally, when another charity receives payment from the Senator's charity to pay for the Senator's travel and lodging.

In vetting this proposal, I have heard concerns that prohibition on a Senator's family serving in a paid capacity of a charity they substantially influence may be too broad. The example of my friend Senator Elizabeth Dole is raised. When her husband, Senator Bob Dole served as our distinguished majority leader, Senator Elizabeth Dole served as the president of the American Red Cross. The purpose of my resolution is not to clamp down on this from occurring.

That is why my resolution would allow Senators to seek a waiver from the Senate Ethics Committee when a family member has substantial influence over a charity, and the family member's influence over the charity clearly does not provide any benefit to the Senator.

I know that some Senators may argue that more rules do not ensure ethical conduct. That is true. Every Senator is responsible for behaving ethically. My resolution will not automatically make unethical arrangements ethical. Nor should the resolution be viewed as a statement on the ethical conduct of members that currently maintain and control charities. As Ecclesiastes chapter 3, verse 17 says, ``God shall judge the righteous and the wicked.''

My resolution simply aims to do better--to give the public confidence that when a Senator starts a charitable organization it is for charitable purposes. It is to fulfill the commandment expressed in Deuteronomy that ``Every man shall give as he is able. ``

My resolution has been endorsed by the watchdog groups Public Citizen and the National Committee on Responsive Philanthropy.

I urge the Senate to support my resolution.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, to introduce a bill making the position of executive director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, or the PBGC, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.

Quite frankly, I was surprised to find out that this important position is not subject to Senate approval. The Secretary of Labor, the Chairman of the PBGC, simply appoints the executive director. This is too important a position not to be subject to Senate oversight.

Jurisdiction over the PBGC rests with both the Committee on Finance and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, the HELP Committee. To recognize this, our bill would require both committees to approve the director.

The Finance Committee, the HELP Committee, and indeed the entire Senate have spent considerable time over the last few years fighting to protect the pensions of millions of workers. And the deficit of the PBGC--now over $23 billion--has been growing.

We now have a bill in conference that I hope will be brought back before the Senate soon. And I hope that the simple provision that I am introducing today can be added to that legislation.

It is the perfect time to make the position subject to Senate approval. The current executive director is leaving the PBGC at the end of May. And his replacement should be subject to Senate confirmation.

The PBGC is a government corporation that was created when ERISA was enacted in 1974. It is established within the Department of Labor. Labor controls PBGC for many administrative matters. But PBGC has its own budget, which goes through the PBGC Board, and PBGC's attorneys litigate their own cases. PBGC is controlled by a 3-person Board made up of the Secretary of Labor, as the Chairman of the PBGC, and the Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce.

PBGC is run on a day-to-day basis by an executive director. This position is not mentioned in ERISA but is a creation of the PBGC by- laws adopted by the board. The Secretary of Labor appoints the executive director, who is a political appointee. Executive directors have stayed on average a couple of years.

The PBGC insures the pensions of 40 million workers and retirees in about 30,000 plans. These plans have trillions of dollars in assets. PBGC itself has more than $40 billion in assets, more than $63 billion in liabilities, and a $23 billion deficit. Even with the rush to terminate or freeze current plans, most of the Nation's biggest companies still maintain defined benefit plans. What happens with defined benefit plans has a big effect on America's competitiveness and affects the retirement security of America's workers and retirees.

Making the executive director's position an advice and consent position would give the Senate say in what type of person serves in this position so that PBGC does not become another FEMA. It would show the importance that Congress attaches to the role of the PBGC for workers, retirees and employers. It would raise the attraction of the PBGC director position.

I ask my colleagues to support making the PBGC executive director position subject to Senate approval.

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

Madam President, in consultation with the chairman of the committee, I ask consent that the filing deadline for the second-degree amendments to S. 1955 occur at 3 p.m. today.

Madam President, I begin by commending my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on Finance. He is a great American. People in Iowa are very lucky to have him representing them. I know of no finer man in the Senate.

I know Senator Grassley sought to defend the Senate's position in the conference committee. He is a proud man, too. He wanted to do what is right in defending the Senate's position, but I regret the conference committee could not end up more like the Senate product because the conference before the Senate today is much different than the bill that passed the Senate. It is so different that I am raising questions as to how much of the Senate bill we have in the conference.

This past Saturday, Lillian Asplund died. Ms. Asplund was the last American survivor of the 1912 sinking of the Titanic. She was the last survivor with actual memories of the event. Ms. Asplund's life reminds us that people make choices, and those choices can have significant consequences. Just as much, the bill before the Senate today reflects choices. Those choices will have significant consequences.

Shortly after midnight on that cold morning of April 15, 1912, passengers started evacuating that doomed ship. At the beginning, women and children went first. But it was not long before that rule gave way. Soon it became clear that the privileged went into the rescue boats first.

About that time, the most extraordinary thing happened: Some of those privileged and wealthy passengers decided to give up their place in line. They decided to let others go first. Benjamin Guggenheim, the son of the colossally wealthy mining magnet, sipped brandy and smoked cigars in a deck chair while the ship went down.

Today, on this bill, we see no such valor, we see no such sacrifice. Rather, in this bill, ideological wants push their way to the front of the line, ahead of America's needs.

At the end of last year, 16,000 American businesses lost their tax incentive to create high-paying research jobs for American-based workers. But relief for them did not make it into this bill.

At the end of last year, millions of school teachers lost a small but significant tax break for classroom supplies they purchase out of pocket. But relief for them did not make it into this bill.

At the end of last year, millions of middle-income American families with kids in college lost the ability to deduct tuition costs. But relief for them did not make it into this bill.

These provisions--what some people call the popular ``tax extenders''--were given second-class status. They did not make it into the lifeboat. And to what did these popular, already-expired tax provisions have to give way? Well, the first-class passenger on this ship is a tax break for investors, where not one dollar will be used until January 1, 2009.

I think it is important to remind ourselves of that. Not one dollar of cap gains and dividend tax breaks will be utilized by anyone until January 1, 2009. That is several years from now.

But some will say this tax break for 2009 is desperately needed today--Why? they say--to provide certainty. You might as well just call this tax bill, the 2009 Tax Increase Prevention Act, because it does just that: it prevents tax increases for the most well-off in the future, in 2009. This bill chose to prevent a tax increase in 2009, rather than prevent tax increases in 2006.

For the millions of families, teachers, businesses, and workers out there who lost their tax benefits on January 1 of this year, there is no tax increase prevention in this act. There is no ``tax increase prevention act'' for the so-called second-class citizens.

I do not call them second class at all. They are Americans. They are teachers. They are people working in research and development. They are families and kids trying to pay tuition costs. There is no relief for them. All of those provisions expired at the end of last year. Here we are, well into 2006, and they are not in this bill. Middle-American provisions are not in this bill. No. Rather, what is in this bill is for 2009, a tax break for 2009 for investors.

Well, some will also say: Oh, don't worry. Other tax legislation may be, might be, should be coming soon. Yes, and the check is in the mail.

Some will say these 2009 cuts on capital gains and dividend income will benefit all Americans, and you will see a blizzard of statistics and quotes to try to substantiate that point, including the chart you recently saw from my good friend from Iowa. Actually, that is not a Joint Tax Committee chart. That is a chart based upon the Finance Committee staff with Joint Tax Committee statistics. And that chart, frankly, does not accurately portray the facts. Many commentators who have commented on that chart have pointed out the discrepancies in it.

I am not going to get into this tit for tat, back and forth as to whose statistics are better. But I will say this, it defies common sense to argue that a tax break that takes effect in 2009 for the high- income Americans somehow benefits middle-income and lower income Americans more than the most wealthy. That totally defies logic. Someone can come up with a set of statistics to try to make that point but it is patently absurd.

Some will say these 2009 tax cuts, as I say, will benefit all Americans, and you will see statistics, but that is not the fact.

I decided to go to the source. I represent Montana. The more than 900,000 residents of Montana are my employers, so I asked the Montana Department of Revenue where the benefit of these tax cuts would go. Well, of course, not everyone in Montana has this type of investment income.

So the Montana Department of Revenue told me that just 400 households in Montana would receive an average benefit of $14,000 from the capital gains tax cut in 2009. Roughly, 90 percent of the households in Montana would get almost zero benefit from the capital gains cut. Ninety percent: almost zero benefit.

With these numbers, it is very hard for me to understand why this 2009 tax break is urgent, while Montana teachers and families with kids in college who lost their tax break last December must wait for the next rescue boat, whenever it may or may not occur.

Of course, I am very pleased that protection is in the bill from the alternative minimum tax. I am pleased that conferees included the full Senate-passed version.

Some may recall, it was a struggle to get that in the Senate-passed version last November. The original version, and the version that came out of committee, did not include a full hold harmless from the alternative minimum tax. Those versions would have left 600,000 more families paying that tax. We fought to improve the Senate bill to be a true hold harmless. And we succeeded in doing so before the bill finally left the Senate. That version is retained today. This protection from the alternative minimum tax will protect almost 17 million families across our country, including about 45,000 in Montana. The Montana tax collector tells me that AMT protection will help about a quarter of all households in Montana with incomes between $45,000 and $80,000. That group might have otherwise seen an average tax increase of $1,700.

Unfortunately, there is little else in this bill to be proud of. Working families have been left behind. Congress has chosen ideological wants over America's needs.

The Senate-passed bill did the tax business the Congress needed to do this year. I am proud of that bill. In contrast, the bill before us leaves much work undone. As a result, the deficit will probably be larger because the conferees made the choices they did.

I will have more to say about the fiscal effects of this bill. In the end, those effects may be the real iceberg. The fiscal effects of this policy may be the real disaster. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to reject the choice made by this conference. I urge my colleagues to vote against leaving those families and teachers and workers behind. I urge my colleagues to reject this disastrous bill.

One other point, Madam President, is this: The conferees had a choice. Basically, we did one thing we had to do. I should not say ``we'' because I was not on the conference. I was not allowed to be a member of the conference. But while the conferees did do something that was good--that is, make sure the taxpayers do not have to pay the alternative minimum tax--they had another choice, and the choice basically is this: Do they enact a tax break that does not take effect until 2009, for investors, or do they include provisions such as the research and development tax credit, the WOTC, the work opportunity tax credit, the tuition tax deduction, and the teachers deduction, which expired last year? Do they enact those and extend those for this year so people will still know research and development is important this year?

Again, the choice is: On the one hand, enact a provision that does not take effect until 2009 for investors or, instead of doing that, because that can be postponed for a couple years--we are not yet in 2009--extend the provisions which expired last year. These are provisions that American business and industry and innovators are desperately depending on--that is, the research and experimentation tax credit--to help America be competitive in the world. Or they could have included provisions that parents paying for college tuition can count on, teachers can count on for the supplies and so forth. All of these expired last year.

So again, the choice is: a 2009 tax break or help maintain those provisions which expired last year. That is basically what all this comes down to. That is the choice that was before the conferees. And the conferees chose the former, the 2009 extension--it does not take effect for a few more years--for the most well-off, at the expense of American businesses, their companies, and universities that are so depending on the research and experimentation tax credit. And, at the expense of teachers who so clearly today depend upon that little extra help for classroom supplies, at the expense of kids and families who so need that tuition deduction.

That was the choice that was made. And the choice, as I said, was ideological wants of a few at the expense of America's needs. That is basically what is before us today. That is why I think it makes sense not to adopt this conference report.

Madam President, our country is in a battle. It is a competitive battle with the rest of the world--China, India, Eastern European countries. There are so many countries that are so excited about their future, and they are trying to increase their economic position. I take my hat off to them. They are trying very hard, and they are doing a great job. Certainly, businesses in China and India are.

We have to meet that challenge. And it is a great opportunity for us. But to meet that challenge, we have to start today thinking strategically, thinking longer term. What does that mean? That means much more attention on education, a lot more attention on education, so we have the best and the brightest in America who can design the products we can utilize here, with high-paying jobs here, and export those products overseas.

Also, there is so much we have to do. We have to stop thinking short term in this country, in this Congress, in this administration and start laying the foundation for the long term.

Now, some will say: Well, we need, in 2009, to extend, for 2 more years, the dividend and capital gains tax cut because that is good for America. I have to say, I have lots of arguments and statements by very reputable people who say that is not the case. Let me refer to a couple of them.

Let's take the Federal Reserve. Let's talk about the stock market. Federal Reserve economists recently compared key U.S. stocks, which would benefit from the 2003 tax cuts, to other investments, which would not. What did they conclude? What did Federal Reserve economists conclude:

We fail to find much, if any, imprint of the dividend tax

cut news on the value of the aggregate stock market.

That is the conclusion of Federal Reserve economists. The Congressional Research Service agrees. What do they say?

Any stock market effects represent temporary windfalls to

holders of current stocks and are simply a manifestation of

the income effects of the tax cuts; these wealth effects

should not be considered as an additional stimulus. . . .

Recent studies finding that dividends had increased

substantially have been used to argue that the tax cut

induced private savings. This evidence does not appear

robust. . . .

There are lots of comments--lots. And I might say: Why is the economy doing pretty well today? The proponents of this conference report would like to say: Oh, it is because of the other tax cuts. The stock market went up dramatically more before those tax cuts went into effect. And since those tax cuts went into effect, the stock market has not done so well.

I might also point out that the economy is doing well now. Why? Read this morning's paper. There was a big, long article asking: Why is the economy doing so well? And what does this morning's paper say? What are the conclusions, basically? It is because of strong, aggregate demand-- where? China, India--for commodities, for oil, for gas, for coal, for uranium. That is what I think has kept basically demand strong. It is, also, frankly, a major propellant for the economy today. It is not the dividends and capital gains tax cut. That is a ruse. I am not going to go into it any more than that because I know subsequent speakers will have a blizzard of statistics to argue the opposite.

It kind of gets me to another point. When the rooster crows, does that cause the Sun to come up? Does it? I don't think so. Did the dividend and capital gains tax cuts cause the great economy we have? Not necessarily.

You have to ask yourself what is the real cause. The real cause is the underlying demand from other countries which are buying so many commodities. That is one reason why the price of oil is so high today, and that is what is causing the market to go up. That is what is causing the economy to be strong.

We have to ask ourselves: That is today; what about tomorrow? What about next year, 2 or 3 years from now? These tax breaks are also going to make the deficit and debt much worse. We want to be strong tomorrow. By tomorrow, I mean the next few months, the next, couple 3 years. We want the stock market to be high during that period. We want demand and wages to be high.

That will happen the more we focus on the basics today. The basics again are education, research, and development so that we start strategically to plan for our kids and grandkids. The conference report before us decides against that. This report says: No, forget the basics. Forget teachers, forget research and development. Even though those provisions expired last year, we won't do anything about them. Rather, we are going to pass this provision which costs so much money in this budget and doesn't take effect for 3 more years. That is not a choice most Americans would want us to make.

I notice Senators Bingaman and Dodd have been waiting to address the Senate. I would like to inquire through the Chair whether the Republican side has a speaker who wishes to speak. If not, I yield 10 minutes to Senator Bingaman, to be followed by 15 minutes to Senator Dodd. I ask unanimous consent for that. That is 10 minutes to Senator Bingaman and 15 minutes to Senator Dodd.

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

Mr. President, a few days ago, at Lincoln Center in New York City, illusionist David Blaine completed a week in a water-filled bubble. He then got himself chained up, got rid of his air hose, and tried to escape from the chains, while setting a world record for holding one's breath underwater. His goal was to hold his breath for 9 minutes.

His feat was impressive. But he failed. After 7 minutes, he had to be let out of the remaining chains. He had to be rescued.

This bill also contains an illusion. This bill's illusion is paying for tax cuts with further tax cuts. Like Mr. Blaine's illusion, this bill's illusion also fails.

I give Mr. Blaine a lot of credit. He does his illusions in full view of the public--an open water bubble in the middle of New York City.

The tax bill does its illusions in the dark--outside the budget window.

Some of those viewing Mr. Blaine in New York City thought he had a lot of chutzpah to try his feat. The sponsors of this tax bill also have a lot of chutzpah if they think they can balance one set of tax cuts with another set of tax cuts--and call that fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Blaine called his stunt ``Drowned Alive.'' That also a fitting name for what this bill would do to the American taxpayer.

I am talking about section 512 of this bill. That section would remove the income limits on conversions from traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs, effective in 2010. Under this provision, all who convert their IRA accounts in 2010 get a tax break--2-year averaging of the taxable amount of the conversion, with payments to be made in 2011 and 2012.

Why does the bill contort these changes into 2010 through 2012? There is an easy explanation. The conferees wanted to raise money in 2011 through 2013. They needed money on those years to help cover the cost of extending capital gains and dividends cuts. And they needed to cover those costs to avoid a point of order under the Byrd Rule. So a 2010 effective date and the funneling of transfers into 2010 serve a clear purpose.

The sleight of hand is that a provision that loses money--billions of dollars a year--in years beyond the budget window are made to pass muster as a revenue offset provision. The illusion is to call this provision a revenue raiser.

How does this provision raise revenue? It encourages taxpayers who earn more than $100,000 a year to transfer traditional IRA balances into a Roth account. These taxpayers would pay taxes in the short run on traditional IRA balances and get tax-free investment income later.

Take for example a taxpayer with an IRA holder who makes $120,000 and is covered by an employer-sponsored retirement plan. Say that this taxpayer contributes to a traditional IRA. Under current law, the contributions would not be deductible. At retirement, the taxpayer would pay ordinary income taxes on the invstment earnings--what tax advisers call ``the inside buildup.'' But the original contributions would be returned tax-free. They would be what tax advisers call ``basis'' in the account.

In 2010, say that the taxpayer takes advantage of the new law we create today and converted the traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. In 2011 and 2012, the taxpayer would pay taxes on 50 percent of the investment earnings that were in the account. At retirement, the taxpayer could withdraw any additional buildup in the account tax free.

So the provision would raise revenue by taxing the conversion in 2011 and 2012. Then the provision would lose revenue when withdrawals were made from the account in the future.

The provision would thus borrow from our children. The conferees felt a need for revenue in 2011 and 2012 to pay for a 2-year extension of the capital gains and dividends cuts. So this bill would take the revenues from the future and claim them now.

The philosophy of this bill is: Let's just spend it now. Let our children figure out how to replace the revenue that would have been collected 10 or 20 or 30 years from now.

How much revenue would this provision take from our children? The Joint Tax Committee's revenue estimates show losses of more than $1 billion in 2014, 1.2 billion in 2015. To get a good idea of the longer- term losses, we asked the Joint Tax Committee to provide us with an estimate for the same provision, but effective in 2006 instead of 2010, so we could confirm that there will be revenue losses further down the road.

Under the joint tax rules, you have to ask them for it beginning this year because they can provide the estimates.

If you ask them beginning in later years, under their rules, they will not do the math. We asked them to do the math and we asked if it went into effect this year.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Tax Committee's response appear at this point in the Record.

The Joint Tax Committee estimated that the pattern of increasing revenue losses continues, growing about $200 million a year. So by 2020, the loss would be over $2 billion a year. That extrapolates to $3 billion a year by 2030. In other words, this bill would take $2 to $3 billion from our children, every year, to pay for a 2-year extension of capital gains and dividends rate tax cuts, which we know would not go into effect until January 1, 2009.

That troubles me, and it should trouble all my colleagues.

The conferees made bad choices in putting this conference report together. American workers need an extension of the Saver's Credit that expires after 2006, but get an extension of a capital gains and dividends cut that does not expire until 2009. And the bill purports to pay for those tax cuts for with a Roth IRA conversion provision that starts losing revenue by 2014 and has losses that balloon outside the budget window.

There are so many reasons to vote against this report. The use of a tax cut to allegedly pay for another tax cut is just one symptom of a seemingly irresistible urge to put wants before needs. I encourage my Colleagues to join me in voting for setting the right priorities. I urge them to vote against this conference report.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to enter into the Record some information I just received from the Joint Committee on Taxation. I asked them to provide me with information on who benefits from the capital gains and dividends tax cuts.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 84 percent of the capital gains tax cut goes to individuals earning $200,000 or more. And also according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 2 percent goes to households earning less than $50,000.

Additionally, for the dividends tax cut, 63 percent of the tax savings goes to individuals with annual income of $200,000 or more. And only 6 percent goes to taxpayers earning $50,000 and under.

I hope this information will help clarify some of the debate on the floor today. Again, these numbers are directly from the Joint Committee on Taxation with no interpretation.

I ask unanimous consent that this information be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I want to talk now about the rules of the Senate. With this bill, the majority has once again abused the process. With this bill, the majority has once again shown its disrespect for the rule of law.

Mr. President, I have served in the Congress for 32 years. I have served in the Senate for 28 years. I am continually grateful to my employers, the people of the State of Montana, for giving me this opportunity.

I was in the Congress in 1975, when the Budget Committee reported the very first budget resolution. I was in the Senate in the early 1980s, when the Budget Committee reported its first budget reconciliation bill. I have seen this process change. And the Majority is changing this process again today.

Mr. President, this bill comes before us today under the extraordinary procedures that we call budget reconciliation. This is a process that bypasses the normal Senate rules.

Under the normal Senate rules, Senators may debate legislation at length. Under budget reconciliation, this bill is subject to a strict time limit.

Under the normal Senate rules, and rule XXII, it takes the affirmative vote of 60 Senators to cut off debate. Under budget reconciliation, a simple majority will determine the outcome of this bill.

The Senate chose early on to limit the power to use budget reconciliation. The Senate saw early on that this power could be subject to abuse.

Thus, starting in 1985, the Senate adopted the Byrd Rule against extraneous matter in reconciliation bills. This important rule was named after the dean of the Senate, the Senior Senator from West Virginia. The Senate enacted this rule to ensure that the majority did not abuse the budget reconciliation process to cover extraneous matters.

From 1985 through 1996, that meant that budget reconciliation bills could not worsen the deficit. Then, in 1996, the current majority chose to overturn that understanding of the rule. And in 1996, the current majority began the process of using reconciliation for legislation that worsens the Nation's fiscal balance. That choice is at the root of much of the fiscal debacle that we see today.

But at least one vital part of the Byrd rule remains. One part of the Byrd rule so explicitly prohibits worsening the deficit that the majority has not yet been able to write it out of the books. One part continues to prohibit including in reconciliation provisions that would cause a committee's entire work product to worsen the deficit in years beyond those covered by the reconciliation instructions. That part is section 313(b)(1)(E) of the Congressional Budget Act.

I believe that, today, the majority is taking another step down the road of abusing the reconciliation process. I believe that today the majority is willfully ignoring the application of that rule. And I thus believe that today the majority is once again cheapening the rule of law.

My complaint lies with the Roth IRA provision that I discussed earlier. As I noted, that provision will worsen the deficit by increasing amounts into the future. But because the majority chooses not to recognize this fact, I am left with no procedural recourse.

I'll try to demonstrate my point through a series of steps.

First, let me take the hypothetical case of a budget reconciliation bill that contained just the Roth IRA provisions in this bill but effective in 2006. That is the case for which the Joint Tax Committee has provided the revenue estimates that I discussed earlier. For the sake of simplicity, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Tax Committee estimates be printed in the Record.

In summary, it shows a provision that begins with revenue increases but then shows revenue losses. Specifically, it shows revenue losses of $1.1 billion in year 5, $1.5 billion in year 6, $1.7 billion in year 7, $1.9 billion in year 8, $2.1 billion in year 9, and $2.3 billion in year 10.

Now, if this provision were the only provision in a budget reconciliation bill covering years 2006 through 2010, it would plainly violate section 313(b)(1)(E) of the Congressional Budget Act because of its revenue losses in the out years.

This is of course a simplistic analysis. There are other provisions in the bill before us. The question then arises whether those other provisions raise more revenue than the Roth IRA provision loses.

My Finance Committee staff have taken the Joint Tax Committee estimates for these other provisions--all the revenue raisers--and projected their current rate of growth into the future. The results are shown in another table, which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record.

This analysis shows that the provisions of this bill will worsen the deficit by $34 million in 2016, $128 million in 2017, $222 million in 2018, $316 million in 2019, and $410 million in 2020.

Now, if the appropriate authorities advised the Chair that the bill before us had the revenue effects described in this table, and the Roth IRA provisions caused the deficit to worsen in these by years by the amounts that I have cited, even when taken together with all the other provisions in this bill, once again, the Roth IRA provision would violate the Byrd rule.

Thus, if one does some rather simple arithmetic, one can readily see that the Roth IRA provisions in this bill would worsen the deficit in the out years. And doing that rather simple arithmetic would render the Roth IRA provisions out of order.

The problem is that my staff's estimates, and even the estimates of the Joint Tax Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, are not authoritative. Under the Budget Act, the Chair is required to turn to the Budget Committee for revenue estimates.

The problem is, for whatever reason, the Budget Committee majority has chosen not to do this rather simple arithmetic. The Budget Committee majority has chosen not to see the fiscal consequences of this bill.

It is not as though these fiscal consequences are somehow obscure. It should come as little surprise that one tax cut will not pay for another tax cut. But the Budget Committee majority chooses not to see.

It is not as though the Budget Committee cannot look into the future. The Budget Committee majority has complained of out year costs involving spending to help the victims of asbestos, for example. But when it comes to these tax cuts, the Budget Committee majority chooses not to see.

It is not as though the Budget Committee cannot recognize a budget gimmick when it sees one. The Budget Committee majority has complained of shifts from one year to another in the highway bill, for example. The Roth IRA provision before us today is the mother of all such shifts. But the Budget Committee majority chooses simply not to see.

Thus, Mr. President, I see this case as another abuse of the process. I see this case as another instance of disregard for the rules of the Senate. I see this case as another case of disrespect for the rule of law.

In 1996, this majority abused the reconciliation process by applying it to legislation to worsen the deficit. Last year, this majority abused the Senate rules by threatening to eliminate the right to extended debate through what folks call ``the nuclear option.'' And today, this majority adds another chapter to that history of abuse of power, by simply choosing not to see violations of the rule when they are there staring us all in the face.

I find it curious that the same majority that cried so loudly about ``the rule of law'' in the impeachment of President Clinton today once again shows such little respect for the rule of law right here in the Senate. For this disrespect for the rule of law is not about private morality. This disrespect for the rule of law is about the exercise of power.

There is a word for disrespect for the rule of law in the exercise of power. It is called tyranny.

And that, Mr. President, is another reason to vote against this conference report.

Mr. President, I must say that I was surprised to see such a complicated and controversial provision in the conference agreement. I am referring to the provision to repeal the grandfather clause that was enacted by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, as part of the repeal of the old FSC/ETI regime. Further, this provision was not in the Senate or the House bill.

What is most surprising, though, is that it may not have been necessary in addition to maybe not being prudent.

This provision purports to end a dispute with the European Union over these long standing tax incentives. But the EU said it was willing to accept the remaining time on the 2-year transition period, and the grandfathering of leasing contracts. The only provision

that the European Union is totally against is the grandfather clause for sales contracts. The European Union stated as much in a letter just last week where they said they wanted to work out a negotiated settlement.

So the question has to be asked: Why does this bill go beyond the European Union's concessions? In an attempt to increase the revenue raised by this bill, the bill eliminates binding contract relief for both lease and sales contracts.

In every step of the way during the last 7 years of this dispute, Congress has worked closely amongst tax and trade experts and alongside business to minimize the harm any new regime might entail. But not here. No hearings, no deliberations, ignoring a concession by the other side and game over.

It is interesting to reflect on the long history of this provision. Both the extraterritorial income and the Foreign Sales Corporation, or FSC, regimes offered exclusions for export income. The Jobs Act repealed the extraterritorial income exclusion provisions and provided transition rules to phase out the tax benefits. The Jobs Act also provided a grandfather clause which allowed certain contracts to continue to receive the extraterritorial income exclusion.

For the past two decades, the U.S. provided export-related tax benefits under the foreign sales corporation regime. In early 2000, the World Trade Organization found that the regime was a prohibited export subsidy under the relevant WTO agreements. Congress then repealed the foreign sales corporation provisions and enacted a new regime, the extraterritorial income regime, or ETI.

From its inception, the European Union has doubted the validity of this regime. The European Union lodged a complaint with the World Trade Organization. It argued that the provision was an export subsidy in violation of World Trade Organization agreements.

The World Trade Organization agreed with the European Union in August of 2001. An appellate body upheld the finding in January 2002. The World Trade Organization later ruled that the European Union could impose $4.03 billion in sanctions on its imports from the United States. Congress immediately began work to fix the problem. There were several hearings that lead to a number of bills attempting to either repeal or modify the exclusion provisions.

The Jobs Act repealed the extraterritorial income regime for transactions after December 31, 2004. It provided a transition rule that phased out the tax benefits over a 2-year period. Taxpayers could retain 100 percent of their exclusion benefits for transactions prior to 2005, 80 percent for transactions during 2005, and 60 percent for transactions during 2006. For transactions after 2006, a taxpayer would not have any income exclusion benefits.

The Jobs Act also provided that a contract in effect prior to September 17, 2003, would still be awarded exclusion benefits for the duration of the contract. This is what we call the binding contract relief. The purpose behind transition rules was to provide a soft landing to corporations. To give corporations time to adjust to the change in tax policy.

Prior to September 17, 2003, companies relied on the extraterritorial income tax benefits when they entered contracts. The binding contract relief protected U.S. companies where the company might otherwise be substantially harmed by the loss of the tax benefit. Eliminating the grandfather clause eliminates certainty for these U.S. companies.

We shouldn't blindly accept a provision that was not part of the Senate nor the House bill. We shouldn't blindly accept a provision that repeals a provision that took years to develop. We shouldn't blindly accept a provision that goes beyond what is required. I urge my colleagues to vote down this bill.

Mr. President, we have had a very interesting debate today. As I expected, it was a real battle of statistics and charts.

Again, I would like to thank my good friend, the chairman of the Finance Committee. I know that Senator Grassley fought hard to defend the Senate position in the conference committee. And I think the vote in favor might have been overwhelming if he had been successful in bringing back that Senate bill rather than the bill we have today.

But I look forward to working with him and battling side-by-side to deliver that promised second bill. And that brings me back to what I spoke of this morning: there is a substantial amount of work undone.

Despite $70 billion spent on tax cuts today, there are millions of teachers, families with kids in college, businesses that want to conduct important research or hire the hard-to-employ that will not see one dollar of the benefits handed out today.

It is true that this conference report made tough choices. Those choices were tough on teachers, tough on families, tough on businesses. Hopefully, their relief boat will be coming soon.

Until then, though, I will be voting against this bill that made the wrong choices--putting 2009 tax cuts before 2006 tax cuts, and putting ideological wants before America's needs.

I hope that the next bill will be a bipartisan product. I am sure if it is, that it will enjoy broad support in this Senate and across the country. I look forward to working on that bill.

Mr. President, I want to take a moment to thank the individuals who worked so hard on this legislation.

First, I thank my good friend Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Finance Committee, for his leadership on this bill. I also appreciate the hard work and cooperation of his staff, especially Kolan Davis, Mark Prater, Dean Zerbe, Elizabeth Paris, Christy Mistr, John O'Neill, Chris Javens, Cathy Barre, Anne Freeman, Grant Menke, and Nick Wyatt.

Second, I thank the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation and Senate legislative counsel for their service.

Finally, I thank my staff for their tireless effort and dedication, including Russ Sullivan, Bill Dauster, Pat Heck, Melissa Mueller, Jonathan Selib, Judy Miller, Rebecca Baxter, Ryan Abraham, Carol Guthrie, and Brianne Rogers.

I also thank our dedicated fellows, Mary Baker, Stuart Sirkin, Thomas Louthan, Tiffany Smith, Laura Kellams, Caroline Ulbrich, Margaret Hathaway, and Robin Burgess. I also thank our law clerk, Christal Edwards.

I thank our hardworking interns Zachary Henderson, Lesley Meeker, Lauren Shields, Britt Sandler, Jordan Murray, and Andreas Datsopoulos.

Wage Limitation

Mr. President, I would like to engage in a brief colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, regarding changes to the section 199 wage limitation. The conference report attempts to better target the application of the wage limitation by counting only those wages that are ``properly allocable to domestic production gross receipts.''

This change may have unintended consequences for certain industries. In some industries, many workers, particularly those with specialized expertise, provide services as independent contractors or through their own businesses. In such cases, service payments to these workers are not treated as wages under the current wage limitation.

When section 199 was first created, some of the impacted industries requested that we adopt a rule to count these payments for services in determining the wage limitation. The request was dropped because we addressed their issue indirectly by allowing them to use a broader wage base for calculating the limitation. By eliminating this ``headroom,'' we are resurrecting a problem for these industries.

These industries are doing exactly what section 199 was meant to encourage. They are creating high-quality manufacturing and production jobs and contributing substantially to our Nation's economy and trade. I am hopeful that we will reexamine this issue and take the steps necessary to ensure that these industries are not adversely and unduly affected.

I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee for this clarification and his willingness to work with me to address this important problem.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the State Health Insurance Assistance Program. I filed amendment No. 2917 to increase resources for this important initiative.

The State Health Insurance Assistance program, known as SHIP, provides one-on-one counseling and assistance to people with Medicare and their families. Congress created the program in 1990 so that Medicare beneficiaries could obtain free, unbiased and personal assistance with their health benefits. Today, SHIPs operate in all 50 States, Washington, DC, and the territories.

Over the last 2 years, SHIPs have had the formidable task of helping Americans understand the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. In all States, SHIPs enlisted the help of thousands of volunteers--over 11,000 nationally--for a massive public outreach campaign.

SHIP counselors and volunteers--like Bobbie Roberts and Sue Bailey in Billings, MT.--conducted public education programs at senior centers, hospitals, assisted-living facilities, libraries, and other public venues. They answered questions via telephone and in face-to-face sessions. And they spent countless hours helping Medicare beneficiaries choose and enroll in a drug plan that best meets their needs.

These folks deserve our thanks. They are truly unsung heroes who have helped make the drug benefit a reality for millions of people with Medicare.

And they did all this on a shoe-string budget.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, operates the Medicare Program. As such, CMS is responsible for providing funding to the SHIP. But last year, in the midst of the largest Medicare expansion ever, CMS provided SHIPs just $32 million to carry out their important work. Thirty-two million dollars sounds like a lot of money. But when you think about the workload the SHIPs faced, it is not much. In fact, that $32 million translates to only 70 cents per Medicare beneficiary. A five-county region in Montana about the size of Delaware received about $8,500 in SHIP funds for the entire year. That is not enough. I believe that the lack of sufficient resources for SHIPs goes a long way toward explaining why enrollment in the drug program continues to lag.

I might also note that the $32 million CMS provided to SHIPs pales in comparison to the roughly $300 million CMS spent promoting the new drug benefit. That $300 million went to programs like the toll-free 1-800 Medicare hotline.

Last week the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, GAO, Congress's investigative arm--found major flaws with the Medicare hotline. GAO found that the Medicare hotline failed to give seniors correct information on one key question--which plan offered the lowest costs for individuals taking a given set of drugs--almost 60 percent of the time.

And what about some of the other funding devoted to promoting the drug benefit? CMS spent some of the funds on a bus tour. In 2003 CMS spent $600,000 to promote Medicare with a blimp at football games. And other funding went to Ketchum Communications, which produced simulated news reports on the drug program. In 2004, the GAO found that these videos violated the government ban on publicity and propaganda.

We can do better. We can promote the drug benefit in more cost- effective ways by appropriately funding SHIPs. Recent findings from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission underscore this assertion. A recent study by MedPAC suggests that only 1 in 5 people used the Medicare hotline and only 1 in 10 used the Medicare Web site to make decisions about their Medicare drug coverage.

And even though this year's enrollment deadline is almost upon us, the hard work is not over. Enrollment in the Medicare drug benefit is still too low in many States. In Montana, 40 percent of people with Medicare still don't have any form of drug coverage. A study released yesterday by Families USA estimates that most people who haven't signed up have low income and would qualify for the extra help that Congress included in the drug benefit.

We need to increase SHIP funding to help meet challenges that lie ahead. My amendment would provide $25 million for States to expand their SHIP activities. Funds also would be available for innovative programs in States where Medicare drug coverage is low. And funds would be available to CMS to promote the existence and services of SHIPs.

As the new program evolves, many people with Medicare and their families will have even greater need for a reliable source of impartial advice. And more needs to be done to help low-income people enroll. Many of us voted for the drug benefit because we believed it would help people who need help the most. Let's make that happen in every community in every State. Let's devote resources to a program that works. Let's help thousands of volunteers help our seniors. Let's increase vital resources for the State Health Insurance Assistance Program.

I ask consent the following fellows, interns, detailees of the Committee on Finance be allowed on the Senate floor for the duration of the debate on the tax relief bill, H.R. 4297: Mary Baker, Tom Louthan, Tiffany Smith, Robin Burgess, Christal Edwards, Laura Kellams, Caroline Ulbrich, Margaret Hathaway, Britt Sandler, and Lauren Shields.

Mr. President, I am proud to rise today and announce a historic event in my home State. For only the second time in the history of Montana, our great State will welcome the President of Ireland. President Mary McAleese has displayed courage, intellect, determination, and passion as she has guided her country for nearly a decade. During this time her country has experienced unprecedented growth, quickly rising to the upper echelons of nations.

President McAleese will make an inaugural pilgrimage to a city whose history has been intimately tied with Ireland's for more than a century. In 1882, a lone Irish immigrant, driven by the work ethic instilled in his homeland and his desire to succeed, made a discovery that would forever change the face of Montana, the West, and America. The city was Butte, MT, and the man was Marcus Daly. Three hundred feet into the belly of the Earth, Daly set off an explosion that unearthed a revolution. Before his amazed eyes lay one of the riches veins of copper the world had every seen, and with it the unknowing hopes of millions of Irish immigrants.

Butte, and its neighbor to the northwest Anaconda, quickly became thriving metropolises turning these mining communities into a virtual mosaic of nationalities and ethnicities. When walking down the street, one could hear the chatter of Eastern Europeans, smell cooking from the Middle East, or view native dress from Scandinavia. But above all was the voice of the Irish. The Irish made Butte their own, easing their longing for their native Eire by molding the city to reflect the land from their past. The streets were vibrant with festivities straight from the homeland; these hard-working immigrants, ranging in professions from doctors to lawyers to miners and gandy dancers, populated this young bustling city and gave it the feel of an island thousands of miles away.

As the years passed, the pride of the Irish continued to ring strong, and with it the city of Butte. Butte quickly became the heart of Montana, and shaped the figures whose names would forever be remembered in the lore of our State. Names like Mike Mansfield and Burton Wheeler will be etched in the hearts and minds of Montanans for many years to come, and with them the tradition of the Irish.

Today, Butte remains a vibrant city, as the new generation of Irish- Americans listen to the whispers of their ancestors and continues to uphold the proud tradition of being Butte Irish. With the same values that turned this sleepy community into the heartbeat of the West, the people of Butte continue to thrive and the city remains as strong as the immigrants who first settled it.

As President McAleese is embraced by the spirit of this magnificent city and by the residents who carry on the

proud tradition of hailing from Butte, I say: may the road rise to meet you, may the wind be always at your back, may the sun shine warm upon your face, the rains fall soft upon your fields and, until we meet again, may God hold you in the palm of His hand.