Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague Senator Harkin to introduce legislation today that would extend the termination date for mandatory price reporting.

Due in large part to concerned Iowa livestock producers, Congress passed the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act, LMPR, in 1999 to help improve market transparency.

Since Mandatory Price Reporting was implemented by USDA in 2001, I have heard from producers across Iowa who question the integrity and accountability of the reported prices under Mandatory Price Reporting under this law.

While there is a lack of ``believability'' regarding the information generated by Mandatory Price Reporting, nearly all producers across Iowa feel strongly that the information would be valuable if the program had more credibility and improved transparency.

Thanks to producer comments and dissatisfaction with the current program, Senator Harkin and I offered to initiate a Government Accountability Office, GAO, examination of the Mandatory Price Reporting program.

I then conditioned my support of any multi-year extension or revision of Mandatory Price Reporting on the GAO study results.

Unfortunately, there is growing pressure from packers and ``packer lackeys'' to act before the GAO report is completed.

Under the auspice of ``consensus'' a number of groups serving packer interests are pushing agendas contrary to the interests of Iowa's pork producers and cattlemen.

The Iowa livestock community believes any congressional action before receipt and review of the GAO report would be premature and ill- advised.

The goal of re-authorization should be to improve the existing legislation to the best of our ability based upon the best available information and analysis.

If the non-partisan GAO is not allowed to complete its work before the law is re-authorized, Congress will be neglecting the opportunity to review and reflect upon an exhaustive study.

Let me be clear, livestock producers in Iowa do not think it is prudent to move forward without substantive review and potential improvement of the current program. Only those entities that fear transparency should be fighting for a 5 year extension with no consideration for the GAO's pending conclusions.

The House Agriculture Committee passed out a five year extension and I hope they will take into consideration the remarks made by me today. I look forward to protecting the interests of family farmers and believe this another way of providing that protection.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague Senator Harkin to introduce legislation today that would extend the termination date for mandatory price reporting.

Due in large part to concerned Iowa livestock producers, Congress passed the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act, LMPR, in 1999 to help improve market transparency.

Since Mandatory Price Reporting was implemented by USDA in 2001, I have heard from producers across Iowa who question the integrity and accountability of the reported prices under Mandatory Price Reporting under this law.

While there is a lack of ``believability'' regarding the information generated by Mandatory Price Reporting, nearly all producers across Iowa feel strongly that the information would be valuable if the program had more credibility and improved transparency.

Thanks to producer comments and dissatisfaction with the current program, Senator Harkin and I offered to initiate a Government Accountability Office, GAO, examination of the Mandatory Price Reporting program.

I then conditioned my support of any multi-year extension or revision of Mandatory Price Reporting on the GAO study results.

Unfortunately, there is growing pressure from packers and ``packer lackeys'' to act before the GAO report is completed.

Under the auspice of ``consensus'' a number of groups serving packer interests are pushing agendas contrary to the interests of Iowa's pork producers and cattlemen.

The Iowa livestock community believes any congressional action before receipt and review of the GAO report would be premature and ill- advised.

The goal of re-authorization should be to improve the existing legislation to the best of our ability based upon the best available information and analysis.

If the non-partisan GAO is not allowed to complete its work before the law is re-authorized, Congress will be neglecting the opportunity to review and reflect upon an exhaustive study.

Let me be clear, livestock producers in Iowa do not think it is prudent to move forward without substantive review and potential improvement of the current program. Only those entities that fear transparency should be fighting for a 5 year extension with no consideration for the GAO's pending conclusions.

The House Agriculture Committee passed out a five year extension and I hope they will take into consideration the remarks made by me today. I look forward to protecting the interests of family farmers and believe this another way of providing that protection.

Mr. President, today we have the opportunity to finish a very long journey in the quest to build a dynamic, comprehensive energy policy for the United States of America. I can say with pride that this Congress, through many trials and tribulations, has now performed admirably in its duty to the American people. This is a balanced energy bill that focuses as much on the future as it does the present. We have the opportunity with the passage of this legislation to safely produce more energy from more sources and with more infrastructure security then ever before.

On June 21st, the Senate passed H.R. 6 which included the Energy Policy Tax Incentives Act of 2005. The tax provisions were a bipartisan product formulated with Senator Baucus, after consultation with many Members of the Senate.

In my estimation, the energy policy tax incentives reflected in this conference agreement are a fair balance of the interests of the Members and effectively supports the development of energy production from renewable and environmentally beneficial sources.

I would like to briefly describe these tax incentives that are included in the final energy Conference agreement.

For years, I have worked to decrease our reliance on foreign sources of energy and accelerate and diversify domestic energy production. I believe public policy ought to promote renewable domestic production that uses renewable energy and fosters economic development.

Specifically, the development of alternative energy sources should alleviate domestic energy shortages and insulate the United States from the Middle East-dominated oil supply. In addition, the development of renewable energy resources conserves existing natural resources and protects the environment.

Finally, alternative energy development provides economic benefits to farmers, ranchers and forest landowners, such as those in Iowa who have launched efforts to diversify the State's economy and to find creative ways to extract a greater return from abundant natural resources.

Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code currently provides a production tax credit for electricity produced from renewable sources including wind, biomass, and other renewables. The final Energy Tax Incentives Act extends the section 45 credit through the end of 2007.

I have been a constant advocate of alternative energy sources. Since the inception 13 years ago of the wind energy tax credit, wind energy production has grown considerably. In addition, wind represents an affordable and inexhaustible source of domestically produced energy.

Extending the wind energy tax credit until 2008 will support the tremendous continued development of this clean, renewable energy source.

The conference agreement supports a maturing green energy source. Experts have established wind energy's valuable contributions to maintaining cleaner air and a cleaner environment. Every 10,000 megawatts of wind energy produced in the United States can reduce carbon monoxide emissions by 33 million metric tons by replacing the combustion of fossil fuels.

In addition, this agreement helps to empower our rural communities to reap continued economic benefits. The installation of wind turbines has a stimulative economic effect because it requires significant capital investment which results in the creation of jobs and the injection of capital into often rural economic areas.

In addition, for each wind turbine, a farmer or rancher can receive more than $2,000 per year for 20 years in direct lease payments. Iowa's major wind farms currently pay more than $640,000 per year to landowners, and the development of 1,000 megawatts of capacity in California, for example, would result in annual payments of approximately $2 million to farm and forest landowners in that State.

Environmentally friendly biomass energy production is a proven, effective technology that generates numerous waste management public benefits across the country.

The biomass definition covers open loop biomass. Open loop biomass includes organic, nonhazardous materials such as sawdust, tree trimmings, agricultural byproducts and untreated construction debris.

The development of a local industry to convert biomass to electricity has the potential to produce enormous economic benefits and electricity security for rural America.

In addition, studies show that biomass crops could produce between $2 and $5 billion in additional farm income for American farmers. As an example, over 450 tons of turkey and chicken litter are under contract to be sold for an electricity plant using poultry litter being built in Minnesota. This is a win-win. Not only do the farmers not have to pay to dispose of this stuff, they get paid to sell the litter. You could find similar examples throughout the Midwest and other farm regions across America.

Finally, marginal farmland incapable of sustaining traditional yearly production is often capable of generating native grasses and organic materials that are ideal for biomass energy production. Turning tree trimmings and native grasses into energy provides an economic gain and serves an important public interest.

I am very proud of a long history of supporting new alternative energy concepts in the production of electricity. The energy conference agreement continues that commitment.

By using animal waste as an energy source, an American livestock producer can reduce or eliminate monthly energy purchases from electric and gas suppliers and provide excess energy for distribution to other members of the community.

Swine and bovine energy is truly green electricity, as it also furthers environmental objectives.

Specifically, anaerobic digestion of manure improves air quality because it eliminates as much as 90 percent of the odor from feedlots and improves soil and water quality by dramatically reducing problems with waste runoff. Maximizing farm resources in such a manner may prove essential to remain competitive in today's livestock market. In addition, the technology used to create the electricity results in the production of a fertilizer product that is of a higher quality than unprocessed animal waste.

The Energy Tax Incentives Act is important to agriculture, rural economy and small business. It is also important for domestic supply and energy independence.

Rural America can play an important part in energy independence and domestic supply. In addition to the production of electricity, this agreement includes additional tax incentives for the production of alternative fuels from renewable resources.

We continue the small producers credit for the production of ethanol. We continue the incentive for the production of biodiesel. Biodiesel is a natural substitute for diesel fuel and can be made from almost all vegetable oils and animal fats. Modern science is allowing us to slowly substitute natural renewable agricultural sources for traditional petroleum. It gives us choices for the future and it can relieve the strain on the domestic oil production to fulfill those important needs that agricultural products cannot serve.

Renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel will improve air quality, strengthen national security, reduce the trade deficit, decrease dependence on the Middle East for oil, and expand markets for agricultural products.

This package is fiscally responsible. The conference report provides a net $11.5 billion in tax relief over 10 years. That figure aligns with the budget resolution. Over 5 years, the package loses only about $6.9 billion.

The Energy conference agreement is a balanced package. I would like to note, with some satisfaction, that today we have performed the people's business in the way they want us to do business. This Energy Tax Incentives Act was crafted in a bipartisan, bicameral way on an important initiative, in a way that reflects the diversity of our views and the diversity of our Nation.

We are committed to this as the correct policy for large scale commercial projects. In addition, we are committed to seeing energy-efficient skyscrapers in the sky and recognize that these types of projects take years to design and build. We will continue to work with you to make this a long-term policy of the Tax Code.

Mr. President, Yes, the distinguished Senator is correct. The conferees understand that there are requests for private letter rulings with respect to the process the Senator from Pennsylvania has described. Moreover, these requests were submitted in Fall 2000. The conferees expect that the Internal Revenue Service would consider issuing these rulings immediately, with due diligence, and without delay.

The Senator from Pennsylvania raises an important and time-sensitive question. When we considered the section 29 changes, the conferees were aware of the process described by the Senator. As the senior conferee for the Committee on Finance, I urge the Internal Revenue Service to consider that process as a qualified fuel that is eligible for the section 29 credit under such circumstances.

Mr. President, today we have the opportunity to finish a very long journey in the quest to build a dynamic, comprehensive energy policy for the United States of America. I can say with pride that this Congress, through many trials and tribulations has now performed admirably in its duty to the American people. This is a balanced energy bill that focuses as much on the future as it does the present. We have the opportunity with the passage of this legislation to safely produce more energy from more sources and with more infrastructure security then ever before.

Among the many people whose hard work has made the difference, I must first thank the chairmen and ranking members of all the appropriating committees that have been involved in this process.

Credit must also go to all members of my staff, who spent many hours sifting through the nuts and bolts of this bill. Kolan Davis, Mark Prater, Elizabeth Paris, Christy Mistr, Kurt Kovarik, John Good, and Nick Wyatt showed great dedication to the tasks before them.

As is usually the case, the cooperation of Senator Baucus and his staff was imperative. I particularly want to thank Russ Sullivan, Patrick Heck, Bill Dauster, Kathy Ruffalo-Farnsworth, Matt Jones, and Ryan Abraham.

I also want to mention George K. Yin, the chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation and his staff, especially the fuel fraud and energy team of Tom Barthold, John Navratil, Deirdre James, Roger Colinvaux, Allen Littman, Gray Fontenot, and Gary Bornholdt as well as the always invaluable assistance of Mark Mathiesen, Jim Fransen and Mark McGunagle of Senate legislative counsel.

This conference agreement is infused with the spirit of bipartisan and bicameral cooperation. It is my commitment that spirit will be influential to the entire ongoing legislative process.

That is our intent. Present law allows the seller to rely on the weight rating specified by the manufacturer when determining the applicability of vehicle excise taxes on trucks. The same rule should apply for tractors.

Mr. President, today is our final step to positively reaffirm our commitment to a strong and dedicated highway program, the safety and soundness of its infrastructure, and the security of the Nation's transportation network.

But in the process of pursuing and completing those goals, conferees had to make many decisions. As chairman of the Finance Committee, at the outset, I committed to several fundamental principles during this conference.

First, that the bill be paid for. Whatever we added to the trust fund should not increase the deficit. If you look at the revenue table, prepared by Joint Tax, you will see that the new trust fund money raised by fuel fraud enforcement is raised in a deficit-neutral manner. The tax-writing committees were fiscally responsible in our efforts to grow the trust fund.

Second, highway taxes pay for highways. These are taxes that will be collected regardless of whether or not we have a highway bill. They can't be used for anything else. The tax provisions of the highway bill aggressively focus on collecting all of the taxes due and owed to the highway trust fund.

So we increase the size of the trust fund. Primarily, we do it by being tough on fraud. Some of this fraud is just plain old criminal activity--but we have reason to believe that billions of our highway tax dollars are being stolen for a more sinister purpose, that being the potential funding of terrorism. So we have the opportunity with this legislation to not only shut down these thieves but to rightfully collect all of our highway taxes to fully fund this bill. Under the Senate bill, several billion dollars will be added to the highway trust fund merely by moving jet fuel to the rack. Unfortunately, we can't keep all of the untaxed jet fuel out of the diesel market unless all 50 States move all of their fuel tax collection to the rack. But we can collect billions that are currently stolen from both airport and highway trust funds.

The third principle was to provide the highway trust fund with sufficient resources to serve America's highway needs. The additional resources the Finance Committee produced for the authorizers, I believe, enabled this deal to happen. Add up last year's FSC-ETI conference report changes and the trust fund gained $24 billion extra. This year we have added another roughly $3 billion in additional receipts for the trust fund. Without these additional resources, we would have faced another case of legislative gridlock. Legislative gridlock wouldn't help the folks we represent who were facing gridlock on their roads.

I would also like to mention two policy initiatives that do not relate to the highway trust fund. The Senate carried into conference a package of excise tax reforms and a transportation bond proposal.

The legislation before us also includes a number of excise tax reforms. These are small items, but important to the affected taxpayers. For the most part, these provisions simplify various Federal excise taxes.

I will note that these excise tax reforms do lose some revenue. It is roughly $1 billion over the 10-year period. When the highway bill came out of the Senate, these measures were offset with revenue raisers to make them deficit neutral. The House did not accept the group of revenue raisers we had allocated to these provisions. It should be noted that the budget resolution provides $36 billion over 5 years for tax relief outside of reconciliation. So this relatively minor deficit impact is accounted for in the budget.

Finally, I am pleased we were able to reach agreement on the Talent- Wyden transportation infrastructure private activity bond proposal. Senators Talent and Wyden are to be commended for pursuing this innovative concept. There will now be $15 billion in bond authority for transportation projects.

We did hear some sharp criticisms of the heavy-lifting the Finance Committee did to make this bill happen. We were told our offsets weren't real and that phony accounting occurred in the highway trust fund. I rebutted these charges during Senate floor debate. I said our principles would be honored in conference and they were. We got the job done.

In the end, that is what counts: doing the peoples' business. The conferees achieved an important policy objective. The highway trust fund more accurately reflects the resources it receives from the taxpayers who use our

Nation's roads. The resources will go into maintaining and improving America's highway system. All of this will be accomplished in a fiscally responsible manner. That is what the folks back home should expect. That is what we have done. That is what really matters. That is why the folks back home sent us here in the first place.

In conclusion, after great effort by many people, the Senate is poised to enacting legislation with the potential to impact all Americans in every State. Crumbling infrastructure and poor transportation choices impede our ability to live and do business, and today we are going to deliver legislation to the President's desk to start solving these problems. Our conference agreement utilizes more than $285 billion to ensure all Americans have access to efficient and reliable transportation as they go about their professional and personal lives.

Among the many people whose hard work has made the difference, I must first thank the chairmen and ranking members of all the appropriating committees that have been involved in this process.

Credit must also go to all members of my staff, who spent many hours sifting through the nuts and bolts of this bill. Kolan Davis, Mark Prater, Elizabeth Paris, Christy Mistr, Sherry Kuntz, John Good, and Nick Wyatt showed great dedication to the tasks before them.

As is usually the case, the cooperation of Senator Baucus and his staff was imperative. I particularly want to thank Russ Sullivan, Patrick Heck, Bill Dauster, Kathy Ruffalo-Farnsworth, Matt Jones, and Ryan Abraham.

I also want to mention George K. Yin, the chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation and his staff, especially the fuel fraud team of Tom Barthold, Deirdre James, Roger Colinvaux, and Allen Littman as well as the always invaluable assistance of Mark Mathiesen, Jim Fransen, and Mark McGunagle of Senate Legislative Counsel.

This conference agreement is infused with the spirit of bipartisan and bicameral cooperation. Hopefully, that spirit will be influential to the entire ongoing legislative process.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senator Bayh and Senator Clinton in introducing the Improving Long-term Care Choices Act. This legislation sets forth a series of proposals aimed at improving the accessibility of long-term care insurance and promoting awareness about the protection that long-term care insurance can offer. It also seeks to broaden the availability of the types of long-term care services such as home- and community-based care, which many folks prefer to institutional care.

Before I begin my discussion of the merits of the legislation that I am introducing today, I want to take this opportunity to once again emphasize my commitment to enacting the Family Opportunity Act. I have worked to get the Family Opportunity Act enacted for many years now.

I have been motivated to work so hard because I have been deeply moved by a number of stories from families, both from my State of Iowa and elsewhere, who have had to turn down promotions, or even put their child with a disability up for adoption in order to secure for these children the medical services they so desperately need.

The Family Opportunity Act would provide a State option to allow families with disabled children to ``buy in'' to the Medicaid program; establish mental health parity in Medicaid Home and Community Based Waiver programs; establish Family to Family Health Information Centers and restore Medicaid eligibility for certain SSI beneficiaries.

As part of the on-going negotiations relative to the FOA, many stakeholders have agreed that a modification of a feature of the President's New Freedom Initiative, a demonstration program known as ``Money Follows the Person'' should be enacted along with the FOA. Money Follows the Person allows the Secretary to provide grants to states to increase the use of home and community based care and provides States a financial incentive for the first year to do so.

I want stakeholders in the disability community as well as the many organizations who support the Family Opportunity Act to understand that the legislation I am introducing today compliments rather than supplants my efforts to enact FOA and Money Follows the Person. I believe that we should provide a wide array of options to the states to encourage them to identify and eliminate barriers to community living including access to consumer direction and respite care.

Long-term care services can be prohibitively expensive. Just one year in a nursing home can cost well over $50,000. In many cases, individuals deplete their savings and resources paying for long-term and ultimately qualify for Medicaid coverage. Right now, Medicaid pays for the bulk of long-term care services in this country. In 2002 alone, we spent nearly $93 billion on long-term care services under Medicaid. With our aging population, one thing is clear: spending will only increase.

When most people think about purchasing long-term care insurance, they think, ``that's something I can put off until tomorrow.'' We need to change the perception because the older you are when you first buy coverage, the more expensive the premiums are.

Our legislation calls for the Secretary to educate folks about the protection that long-term care insurance can offer. We envision people having the opportunity to compare policies available in their States. Among other means, this could be accomplished

through an internet website for example.

Making people aware of long-term care insurance won't go very far though, unless we make some other changes to enhance the value and protection that long-term care insurance can bring. Our bill takes several steps in this regard.

First, the legislation would require that States disregard benefits paid under a long-term care insurance policy when determining eligibility for Medicaid. Second, it incorporates a series of consumer protections recommended by the National Association of Insurance Commissioner, NAIC, into the definition of `qualified long-term care services.' Individuals who purchase a policy that have these consumer protections will be eligible for an above the line tax deduction and a tax credit for out-of-pocket expenses made by caregivers. Third, the bill would expand the long-term care partnership program, which currently operates as a demonstration in four states. The long-term care partnerships combine private long-term care insurance with Medicaid coverage once individuals exhaust their insurance benefits. Several States would like to pursue their own long-term care partnerships and this legislation will enable them to do that.

The Improving Long-term Care Choices Act also builds on the President's New Freedom Initiative by taking further steps toward removing the ``institutional bias'' in Medicaid, giving States the option of providing home- and community-based services as part of their State Medicaid Plan.

In doing so, the bill gives States the flexibility to design long- term care benefits that will reduce the reliance on costly institutional settings and meet the needs of elderly and disabled individuals who overwhelmingly wish to remain in their homes and communities.

In his New Freedom Initiative announced shortly after taking office, President George W. Bush outlined a plan to tear down barriers preventing people with disabilities from fully participating in American society.

The President also endorses the idea of shifting Medicaid's delivery system towards one that promotes cost-effective, community-based care instead of one weighted so heavily towards institutional settings.

This legislation also challenges us to think beyond funding and program silos and directs the Secretary to address administrative barriers that impede the integration of acute and long-term care services. The Secretary also must develop recommendations for statutory changes that will make it easier for States to offer better coordinated acute and long-term care services.

The Improving Long-Term Care Choices Act is consistent with our ideals about families, individual choices in health care and financial responsibility. This bill aims high. But it is sorely evident that we need to think creatively and comprehensively, even boldly, if we hope to make the type of inroads in promoting the availability of good long- term care insurance policies and in rebalancing the institutional bias in long-term care services that no longer reflects the needs and preferences of many stakeholders.

The Improving Long-Term Care Choices Act is a good bill. The American Network of Community Options and Resources, the Arc & United Cerebral Palsy Disability Policy Collaboration, and the National Disability Rights Network, the United Spinal Association, and the Association of University Centers on Disabilities support the bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary of the legislation and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senator Bayh and Senator Clinton in introducing the Improving Long-term Care Choices Act. This legislation sets forth a series of proposals aimed at improving the accessibility of long-term care insurance and promoting awareness about the protection that long-term care insurance can offer. It also seeks to broaden the availability of the types of long-term care services such as home- and community-based care, which many folks prefer to institutional care.

Before I begin my discussion of the merits of the legislation that I am introducing today, I want to take this opportunity to once again emphasize my commitment to enacting the Family Opportunity Act. I have worked to get the Family Opportunity Act enacted for many years now.

I have been motivated to work so hard because I have been deeply moved by a number of stories from families, both from my State of Iowa and elsewhere, who have had to turn down promotions, or even put their child with a disability up for adoption in order to secure for these children the medical services they so desperately need.

The Family Opportunity Act would provide a State option to allow families with disabled children to ``buy in'' to the Medicaid program; establish mental health parity in Medicaid Home and Community Based Waiver programs; establish Family to Family Health Information Centers and restore Medicaid eligibility for certain SSI beneficiaries.

As part of the on-going negotiations relative to the FOA, many stakeholders have agreed that a modification of a feature of the President's New Freedom Initiative, a demonstration program known as ``Money Follows the Person'' should be enacted along with the FOA. Money Follows the Person allows the Secretary to provide grants to states to increase the use of home and community based care and provides States a financial incentive for the first year to do so.

I want stakeholders in the disability community as well as the many organizations who support the Family Opportunity Act to understand that the legislation I am introducing today compliments rather than supplants my efforts to enact FOA and Money Follows the Person. I believe that we should provide a wide array of options to the states to encourage them to identify and eliminate barriers to community living including access to consumer direction and respite care.

Long-term care services can be prohibitively expensive. Just one year in a nursing home can cost well over $50,000. In many cases, individuals deplete their savings and resources paying for long-term and ultimately qualify for Medicaid coverage. Right now, Medicaid pays for the bulk of long-term care services in this country. In 2002 alone, we spent nearly $93 billion on long-term care services under Medicaid. With our aging population, one thing is clear: spending will only increase.

When most people think about purchasing long-term care insurance, they think, ``that's something I can put off until tomorrow.'' We need to change the perception because the older you are when you first buy coverage, the more expensive the premiums are.

Our legislation calls for the Secretary to educate folks about the protection that long-term care insurance can offer. We envision people having the opportunity to compare policies available in their States. Among other means, this could be accomplished

through an internet website for example.

Making people aware of long-term care insurance won't go very far though, unless we make some other changes to enhance the value and protection that long-term care insurance can bring. Our bill takes several steps in this regard.

First, the legislation would require that States disregard benefits paid under a long-term care insurance policy when determining eligibility for Medicaid. Second, it incorporates a series of consumer protections recommended by the National Association of Insurance Commissioner, NAIC, into the definition of `qualified long-term care services.' Individuals who purchase a policy that have these consumer protections will be eligible for an above the line tax deduction and a tax credit for out-of-pocket expenses made by caregivers. Third, the bill would expand the long-term care partnership program, which currently operates as a demonstration in four states. The long-term care partnerships combine private long-term care insurance with Medicaid coverage once individuals exhaust their insurance benefits. Several States would like to pursue their own long-term care partnerships and this legislation will enable them to do that.

The Improving Long-term Care Choices Act also builds on the President's New Freedom Initiative by taking further steps toward removing the ``institutional bias'' in Medicaid, giving States the option of providing home- and community-based services as part of their State Medicaid Plan.

In doing so, the bill gives States the flexibility to design long- term care benefits that will reduce the reliance on costly institutional settings and meet the needs of elderly and disabled individuals who overwhelmingly wish to remain in their homes and communities.

In his New Freedom Initiative announced shortly after taking office, President George W. Bush outlined a plan to tear down barriers preventing people with disabilities from fully participating in American society.

The President also endorses the idea of shifting Medicaid's delivery system towards one that promotes cost-effective, community-based care instead of one weighted so heavily towards institutional settings.

This legislation also challenges us to think beyond funding and program silos and directs the Secretary to address administrative barriers that impede the integration of acute and long-term care services. The Secretary also must develop recommendations for statutory changes that will make it easier for States to offer better coordinated acute and long-term care services.

The Improving Long-Term Care Choices Act is consistent with our ideals about families, individual choices in health care and financial responsibility. This bill aims high. But it is sorely evident that we need to think creatively and comprehensively, even boldly, if we hope to make the type of inroads in promoting the availability of good long- term care insurance policies and in rebalancing the institutional bias in long-term care services that no longer reflects the needs and preferences of many stakeholders.

The Improving Long-Term Care Choices Act is a good bill. The American Network of Community Options and Resources, the Arc & United Cerebral Palsy Disability Policy Collaboration, and the National Disability Rights Network, the United Spinal Association, and the Association of University Centers on Disabilities support the bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary of the legislation and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. President, over the past two decades, Congress has voted again and again to open markets to exports from Central America. In 1983, 392 Members of the House and 90 Members of the Senate voted unilaterally to reduce tariffs on exports from Central America and the Caribbean. In 2000, 309 Members of the House and 77 Senators voted in favor of the Trade and Development Act which further unilaterally opened our markets to products from Central America and the Caribbean.

Today most imports from the region enter our market duty-free. In contrast--and the purpose of this legislation--our exports have faced and continue to face a myriad of tariffs and nontariff trade barriers into that region. Our products going that way, having tariffs and nontariff trade barriers, products coming this way to our country, no barriers. That is the status quo.

In 2005, with the Central American Free Trade Agreement, Congress has the opportunity to reduce tariff barriers to our exports going to these countries. You can see it is a very unfair situation. If we maintain the status quo, it is unfair to American workers, American manufacturers, the economy of America, because their imports come into our country duty-free. Meanwhile, our exports that go to those countries face tariff barriers of from 3 to 16 percent, some tariffs ranging as high as even 150 percent.

This agreement, finally, after about 20 years of our doing favors in that direction, levels the playing field for American workers, American farmers, and American manufacturers so we can sell our products in these countries.

This agreement takes a one-way street of trade and makes it a two-way street. It tears down unfair barriers to our agricultural exports and gives our farmers a chance to compete in a growing and vibrant market of over 40 million consumers.

A vote against CAFTA is a vote for the status quo. It is a vote to keep import duties duty free, but it also keeps tariff barriers to our export products high. If you vote that way, you are not voting for the American worker, you are not voting for the American farmer, you are not voting for the American manufacturer. You are voting for the status quo.

Well, that status quo is that the United States has been giving and giving for 20 years. This is our opportunity to get, to benefit our workers, to have a level playing field for trade--a two-way street for trade.

I don't see how anybody can justify not leveling the playing field for American exporters. That would end up creating jobs here in America.

I yield that back.

It is my understanding that if a traditional plant

were constructed several miles from its customers, the network to deliver cooling would qualify. It seems to me that piping used to draw cold water from the ocean is analogous to piping used with respect to a traditional cooling system and also should qualify.

I agree with the Senator's understanding of the IRS's authority to consult with DOE in this regard, and to establish an equivalent level of efficiency for dishwashers for determining the amount of the credit.

section 1503

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

I rise in support of Tom Dorr, the President's nominee for Under Secretary of Rural Development at USDA.

Tom is a fourth generation ``dirt under the fingernails'' family farmer. He has also been a small businessman and understands the demands and challenges of doing business in rural America.

Tom Dorr is a family man, having been married to Ann for 35 years. They have a son and a married daughter and a beautiful granddaughter, all who live in Iowa.

Tom is a community leader, having served as the chairman of the board for the Heartland Care Center, a cooperative care center in Marcus.

Tom was instrumental in starting the Iowa Corn Growers Association and served in various leadership roles before moving on to leadership at the National Corn Growers Association.

Tom served on the board of the Chicago Federal Reserve and has also served on the Iowa Board of Regents, which is truly one of the most prestigious jobs in our State, a position now held by the wife of my Senate partner from Iowa, Tom Harkin. Mrs. Harkin serves on that prestigious body.

Tom's leadership ability has been demonstrated and utilized to the benefit of his community and our State time and time again.

Tom has dedicated a good portion of his life to serving Iowa's rural population and improving Iowa's rural economy.

Tom Dorr has the financial expertise and business savvy required to run an organization as large and complicated as USDA's Rural Development.

Rural Development is basically a large bank, with a loan portfolio of almost $90 billion. That is as big as Wells Fargo or Chase Manhattan and bigger than most of the banks in America. This agency has 7,000 employees located in over 800 offices across the country.

Not just any person can move from the farm and smoothly take over an organization of this size. But Tom Dorr did exactly that. Tom Dorr ran Rural Development as the Under Secretary for 16 months--from August 2002 until December 2003.

Because of Tom's recess appointment, we have the unique opportunity to examine his track record.

I have heard from many people at USDA about Tom Dorr's accomplishments. This news doesn't come only from other political appointees, it also comes from career staff and groups who originally had concerns.

Folks tell me about his leadership, his vision, his intellect and most importantly, his commitment to rural America. When I hear of comments like this from his peers and those who worked with him, I take particular note.

Let me describe a few of Tom's accomplishments while he was the Under Secretary for Rural Development:

No. 1, he expedited the release of $762 million of water and wastewater infrastructure funds provided in the 2002 farm bill in just 3 months.

No. 2, he led the effort to complete the rulemaking process in order that the $1.5 billion broadband program could begin taking applications this year. He believes that if Americans are to live locally and compete globally, that it is as imperative to wire the country for technology access as it was to provide electricity nationwide 60 years ago.

No. 3, in order to facilitate the review of $37 million in value- added development grants, he creatively used private sector resources to expedite the process.

No. 4, in order to deliver the financial grants authorized through the Delta Regional Authority, he helped develop and get signed a memorandum of understanding between Rural Development and the Delta Regional Authority. This will allow Rural Development to assist in delivering joint projects at no added cost to the Delta Regional Authority.

No. 5, he facilitated the development of a memorandum of understanding, signed by Secretaries Veneman and Martinez, between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, that is focused on better serving housing and infrastructure needs.

No. 6, he has developed a series of initiatives with HUD that will allow Rural Development to more cost effectively meet the housing needs of rural America. These have allowed USDA to provide greater access for rural American housing, but especially minorities living in rural America in fulfillment of the President's housing initiative.

No. 7, he has initiated a review of the Multi-family Housing Program. This includes the hiring of an outside contractor to conduct a comprehensive property assessment to evaluate the physical condition, market position, and operational status of the more than 17,000 properties USDA has financed, all while determining how best to meet the needs of low-income citizens throughout rural America.

No. 8, he has initiated a major outreach program to insure that USDA's Rural Development programs are more easily made available to all qualified individuals, communities, and organizations. This marketing and branding initiative has also played an important role in changing the attitude of employees to concentrate on customer service and proactive outreach, with emphasis on reaching out to minorities.

Although this is an incomplete list of his accomplishments, it is easy to see that as Under Secretary, Tom Dorr did a great job in the short 15 months he served at Rural Development.

Clearly, I support Tom and believe he is the right person for the job, but let me read a few comments from the folks that worked with Tom when he was Under Secretary.

First is the Mortgage Bankers Association, a much respected national organization in the banking industry:

We support Mr. Dorr's nomination as Under Secretary for

Rural Development because we have found him to be an engaged

leader with a true commitment to the housing and community

development needs of rural America--Jonathan L. Kempner,

President/CEO.

This organization certainly is able to recognize if someone has the ability to

understand the financial issues and have the skills needed to run USDA Rural Development.

The next quote is from the Council for Affordable and Rural Housing, a very respected organization serving the housing industry.

On behalf of our members throughout the country, we are

writing to you today in support of the nomination of Thomas

C. Dorr to be the Under Secretary for Rural Development . . .

There is a need for strong leadership and determination to

forge long-term solutions to preserving this important

investment in rural housing--Robert Rice, Jr., President,

Council for Affordable and Rural Housing.

I have many more letters, probably 50 or more, from organizations all across the country asking us to confirm Mr. Dorr. In addition, I have a letter signed by many of the leading national agricultural organizations such as the National Corn Growers Association and American Farm Bureau Federation.

There is another issue that I feel compelled to address today. During the 2002 hearing and in the floor debate in the Senate, concerns were expressed regarding Tom's position on minority issues. I would like to reference letters for the record this morning that should alleviate any lingering concerns.

These letters are from minority organization leaders expressing their support for Tom Dorr's confirmation.

The first letter is from the Federation of Southern Cooperatives. You may recall that they had a representative testify against Mr. Dorr at the 2002 Hearing. I will read a quote from their executive director, Ralph Page:

I am personally endorsing Tom Dorr's nomination because of

his deep interest in rural development. He has made several

visits to the communities within the Federation's network and

has a great understanding of the needs of rural poor

communities. He is the man for the job

Here is another one:

Mr. Dorr [has] made great accomplishments in the position

and has earned the trust from rural Americans to carry out

this mission--Dexter L. Davis, President, Northeast Louisiana

Black Farmers and Landowners Associations.

Here is another one:

I met Mr. Dorr in Washington, DC, when he was serving as

the acting Under Secretary for Rural Development and was

impressed with his passion for small farmers. Quite frankly,

when I first met Tom, I was not expecting him to be

particularly supportive of our needs. But over the years that

we have worked together, I have found him to be a great ally

and a tireless fighter for the causes that we both support--

Calvin R. King Sr., President/CEO, Arkansas Land and Farm

Development Corporation.

Here is another one:

We hold Mr. Dorr as a valuable asset to our organization

and its future. He is one of the individuals that has played

a major role in bridging the gap between the small limited

resource and minority producers for our organization and the

USDA--Fernando Burkett, Black Farmers & Agriculturalists

Association, Arkansas Chapter.

I have many more letters that I could read, but I think it is easy to understand the point. Thankfully, these organizations were concerned enough to come forward after they had a chance to get to know and work with Tom.

In addition, I also want to read portions of a letter to Mr. Dorr by Dr. Dennis Keeney, the former head of the Leopold Center at Iowa State University. Many of you will recall Dr. Keeney was asked to testify against Mr. Dorr in 2002:

I write to apologize for appearing at your hearing in 2002.

It was something I should have said no to right off, but did

not. Then it sort of drug on and I had to go through with the

appearance or lose face. That still did not make it right. .

. . It was during the reading of this book (The Natural, the

Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton) that I realized

that I had become part of the mudslinging and character

assassination. This is not the type of legacy I would like to

leave. You have been misunderstood, and made a poster child

for big agriculture. I am sure that has not particularly

bothered you. But, I have not been proud of my little part in

helping paint that picture--Dr. Dennis Keeney, Emeritus

Professor, Iowa State University, in a letter to Tom Dorr,

June 25, 2003.

I thank Dr. Keeney for sharing this letter and for setting the record straight.

In closing, I ask my colleagues to set aside the politics of the past and concentrate on the real issues affecting rural America and what Tom Dorr would do if confirmed for this important job at USDA.

We have neglected our duty by going 4 years without having a confirmed Under Secretary for Rural Development at USDA. We have had four different individuals serving in the Under Secretary position, and none of them were confirmed by the Senate. That is not a good way to run a business, or a large and complicated agency as important to our States as USDA Rural Development.

Tom has been under a microscope since his original nomination and everyone who has looked in the lense has offered glowing praise for his work and accomplishments.

Thankfully, we do not need to speculate about whether Tom would do a good job or not, Tom has already demonstrated he has done and will likely continue to do a great job for rural America in the role of Rural Development Under Secretary.

How often do we actually get to judge a nominee by their proficiency in the job? Tom is a sure thing. Rural America is regaining its economic, social and cultural momentum. It would be a shame to deprive it of leadership at this critical juncture.

We have a unique second chance today. I hope we will set aside our differences and do what is best for our rural citizens, our States, and our country.

The Senator is asking to speak on the nomination?

I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, Today I am pleased to introduce the Tax Technical Corrections Act of 2005 with Senator Baucus.

Technical corrections measures are routine for major tax acts, and are necessary to ensure that the provisions of the acts are working consistently with the originally enacted provisions, or to provide clerical corrections. Because these measures carry out Congressional intent, no revenue gain or loss is scored from them.

Technical corrections are derived from a deliberative and consultative process among the Congressional and administration tax staffs. That means the Republican and Democratic staffs of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees are involved as is the Treasury Department staff. All of this work is performed with the participation and guidance of the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation staff. A technical enters the list only if all staffs agree it is appropriate.

The process and test for technical corrections ensures that only provisions narrowly drawn to carry out Congressional intent are included.

Unfortunately, some press reports have distorted the technical corrections bill. These reports unfairly characterize this technical corrections bill as a re-opening of substantive tax policy of settled tax legislation.

While it is true that interested parties are heard on purported technical corrections, only measures that all staffs agree are purely technical are included in the bill. Clarifications or substantive changes to provisions are not considered technical corrections. This is an important distinction that the press reports unfortunately did not make.

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

Mr. President, Today I am pleased to introduce the Tax Technical Corrections Act of 2005 with Senator Baucus.

Technical corrections measures are routine for major tax acts, and are necessary to ensure that the provisions of the acts are working consistently with the originally enacted provisions, or to provide clerical corrections. Because these measures carry out Congressional intent, no revenue gain or loss is scored from them.

Technical corrections are derived from a deliberative and consultative process among the Congressional and administration tax staffs. That means the Republican and Democratic staffs of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees are involved as is the Treasury Department staff. All of this work is performed with the participation and guidance of the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation staff. A technical enters the list only if all staffs agree it is appropriate.

The process and test for technical corrections ensures that only provisions narrowly drawn to carry out Congressional intent are included.

Unfortunately, some press reports have distorted the technical corrections bill. These reports unfairly characterize this technical corrections bill as a re-opening of substantive tax policy of settled tax legislation.

While it is true that interested parties are heard on purported technical corrections, only measures that all staffs agree are purely technical are included in the bill. Clarifications or substantive changes to provisions are not considered technical corrections. This is an important distinction that the press reports unfortunately did not make.

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

Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to explain my recent action related to S. 1418, the Wired for Health Care Quality Act. Today, with great reluctance, I asked Leader Frist to consult with us prior to any action related to consideration of this bill, which the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee reported by voice vote this morning.

The Wired for Health Care Quality Act would promote the use of electronic health records by adopting standards for the electronic exchange of information, offer incentives for health care providers to create networks for secure exchange of electronic health information, and ensure quality measurement and reporting of provider performance under the Public Health Service Act.

I fully support linking the adoption of health information technology to quality improvements in our health care system. They go hand in hand. Which is why Senator Baucus and I decided to introduce our Medicare Value Purchasing Act, S. 1356, jointly with Senators Enzi and Kennedy's Better Healthcare Through Information Technology Act, S. 1355. The thought behind a dual introduction was to enforce the message that Medicare can drive quality improvement through payment incentives, and that the adoption of information technology is also a necessary step not only to facilitate the reporting of quality measures but also to increase efficiency and quality in our health care delivery system.

Our bill creates quality payments under Medicare for all provider groups. A considerable amount of time was devoted towards ensuring that the development of quality measures and the implementation of value- based purchasing programs under Medicare were properly vetted with provider groups, beneficiary groups, and the administration. We did not want to reinvent the wheel; we wanted to build on the initiatives that already exist to develop and adopt quality measures. And because Medicare is the single largest purchaser of health care in the Nation, adopting quality payments in Medicare influences the level of quality in all of health care. We have seen time and time again how when Medicare leads, the other public and private purchasers follow.

Which is why I am troubled, that as currently drafted, S. 1418 would require the development of quality measures under the Public Health Service Act. It is hard to comprehend how the quality measurement system in this bill intersects with the quality measurement system developed in the Medicare Value Purchasing Act. The last thing we want to do is end up with two different quality measurement systems. This has the potential to derail both proposals, effectively terminating or at least postponing the common goal of improving the quality of patient care.

The Wired for Health Care Quality Act would also direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services, along with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and other heads of relevant Federal agencies to jointly develop a quality measurement system. The coordination among all these Federal agencies alone is a massive project that could indefinitely stall the development and implementation of appropriate quality measures or result in one that falls to the lowest common denominator. That could actually set back quality efforts.

I welcome the opportunity to work with the sponsors of S. 1418, Senators Enzi, Kennedy, Frist, and Clinton along with members of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on this matter. I had hoped to accomplish that before the bill was introduced on the floor. Unfortunately, that did not happen. I do not take actions such as these lightly. But I am deeply troubled that, as currently drafted, the Wired for Health Care Quality Act could end up unintentionally delaying our common goal of improving the quality of health care for all Americans.

Mr. President, I rise today to salute an extraordinary native Iowan who has fallen in service to his country in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. PFC Eric P. Woods, of the 2nd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, died on the 9th day of July, 2005, in Tal Afar, Iraq, due to injuries sustained when an explosive device detonated under his vehicle. Woods, a combat medic was killed en route to aid an injured soldier. My prayers go out to his wife Jamie, his 3- year-old son Eric Scott, his parents Charles and Janis Woods, and his many other friends and family.

Eric Woods grew up in Urbandale, IA, and was an active member in the youth group at Westchester Evangelical Free Church. At Urbandale High School he wrestled and played football and baseball before graduating in 1997. While attending Iowa State University, he became manager of Krause Gentle Company. After a move to Omaha, Eric became a medic in the U.S. Army.

Private First Class Woods was a truly thoughtful soldier, requesting packages from home containing soccer balls, candy, and toys to give out to the children of Iraq. He will be remembered not only for his sacrifice for freedom but also the way in which he served, giving his life on the way to help an injured fellow soldier. Recently, his pastor said of Eric: ``His motto was to charge, not retreat. He squeezed the most out of life.'' Again my thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends. I ask my colleagues in the Senate and all Americans to remember with gratitude and admiration this courageous Iowan, PFC Eric P. Woods.

Mr. President, I have considered Dr. Crawford's experience and performance on the job for well over a year now. In fact, Dr. Crawford has been the man in charge at FDA since I began taking a hard look at the FDA. It has been a long year for the FDA and I have taken a long look at Dr. Crawford's efforts to address FDA's problems.

I know Dr. Crawford is intimately familiar with how the FDA operates. He has twice served as acting Commissioner, most recently since March 2004, and his lengthy service at the FDA is commendable. Dr. Crawford and I have met on a couple occasions. He is a gentleman and seems to have the best of intentions. He told me personally that he understands there are problems at the FDA that need to be fixed. I believed at one point that he was capable of fixing those problems. However, as the saying goes, ``the proof is in the pudding.'' Today, I am here to say that I cannot vote for Dr. Crawford to be the next Commissioner of the

Mr. President, I have considered Dr. Crawford's experience and performance on the job for well over a year now. In fact, Dr. Crawford has been the man in charge at FDA since I began taking a hard look at the FDA. It has been a long year for the FDA and I have taken a long look at Dr. Crawford's efforts to address FDA's problems.

I know Dr. Crawford is intimately familiar with how the FDA operates. He has twice served as acting Commissioner, most recently since March 2004, and his lengthy service at the FDA is commendable. Dr. Crawford and I have met on a couple occasions. He is a gentleman and seems to have the best of intentions. He told me personally that he understands there are problems at the FDA that need to be fixed. I believed at one point that he was capable of fixing those problems. However, as the saying goes, ``the proof is in the pudding.'' Today, I am here to say that I cannot vote for Dr. Crawford to be the next Commissioner of the