Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to respond to the points raised to justify the budget point of order. The reason I want to do that now is because there are some things that are not clear about this legislation. I tried to make them clear in my remarks yesterday, but it is obvious that if they had been clear, there would not have been a budget point of order.

One of the points made by the chairman of the Budget Committee and other Members of the Senate is that the Senate highway bill is larger than the President's request. It was alleged that Senate authorizers ``snuck in'' a change in their substitute, without a separate vote, to increase the bill's level of funding above $284 billion. Senate budget staff is correct that the amendment on the Floor that is pending is larger in size than the bill requested by the President. Senate leadership, all authorizing committees, and the Finance Committee were well aware of this fact and made a determination to offer a substitute amendment in excess of the President's request. This makes perfect sense and, of course, is in keeping with separation of powers and the fact that the President, under our Constitution, proposes and the Congress, under the Constitution, disposes.

A majority of the Senate wishes to provide more infrastructure resources than the executive branch. The substitute bill, with increased funding, is completely offset or revenue-neutral. As a matter of fact, the bill contributes positively and substantially towards deficit reduction. As indicated in my statement yesterday, the administration and the budgeteers should focus on deficit reduction rather than on the top-line spending number. The Senate continues to offset legislation and, by so doing, exercises fiscal restraint, a fact being continuously ignored by some in this body.

Another point made is that provisions passed in the JOBS bill last October--sometimes referred to as FSC/ETI bill--signed by the President in October, that somehow the provisions we had in that bill relating to fuel fraud did not increase general fund receipts or even things dealing with other tax provisions did not increase general fund receipts. I speak of acronyms that we used last fall that may not be familiar to people now that we are by that legislation. But we constantly talked about the ethanol provisions with the acronym, VEETC, volumetric ethanol excise tax credit, and fuel fraud provisions that were enacted in the JOBS bill which other Members of this body have alleged, and I quote here, ``have made the highway trust fund healthier by $2 to $3 billion annually only by definition, since merely moving around deck chairs has not changed the Federal Government's bottom line.''

That is a serious accusation considering how careful we were over a period of months last year not only to work on the VEETC provisions to bring in money to the Federal Government that was fraudulently not being paid but also to make sure that we did it in a fiscally sound way.

This is my answer to that accusation. Last year the JOBS bill enacted ethanol and fuel fraud provisions that increased projected receipts to the highway trust fund by $17 billion during the period of the highway bill reauthorization, 2005 to 2009. These provisions were also included in last year's transportation bill but had to be enacted instead in the JOBS bill after it became clear that we would not get a conference agreement on the highway bill.

That is an unfair accusation that somehow all this work that we went through is just moving around deck chairs but has not changed the Federal Government's bottom line. Seventeen billion dollars coming in during that period of time, $17 billion, some of which was being fraudulently avoided.

Congress had good reasons to enact the ethanol changes in the JOBS bill. These changes helped to pay for a large bipartisan tax bill to provide tax relief to domestic American manufacturing. And these ethanol changes accompanied other energy incentives in that bill that had overwhelming support of both Chambers and both parties. Because of those ethanol changes, fuel excise tax receipts are now going into the highway trust fund. That means the Federal highway program now has more dollars available to it. It is just common sense. That is how trust fund accounting works.

It seems that some would now allow us to ignore those accounting rules. Some would like us to pretend that those new fuel tax dollars are not in the trust fund. You can't change what are just plain facts of life. These funds are in the highway trust fund.

This Congress should not pretend that a law enacted by a previous Congress did not happen. We are not using fuzzy arithmetic or fuzzy accounting. We are not just moving deck chairs around and not affecting the Government's bottom line. We are, in a very real way, affecting the Government's bottom line. And we are going to have, not only people who were avoiding paying taxes paying those taxes, but we are going to be able to have better transportation infrastructure, better highways by what we are doing. We should not ignore standard fund accounting rules because a minority of this Senate disagrees that taxes paid on a gallon of ethanol should not go into the highway trust fund.

The administration did not object to these provisions as part of the JOBS bill last October. The President signed that bill and now the administration's own transportation proposals rely on these new trust fund receipts that were developed in a bipartisan way by the Senate Finance Committee. The changes that we made in the JOBS Act made good sense, common sense, but that comes out also as good policy. They raised money for the highway trust fund.

We have every right--indeed, we have every obligation to the people who pay money into the road fund--to use those funds to improve America's highways.

If you don't use trust fund money for highways or for other transportation reasons, you should not be taxing it in the first place. But once it is taxed, those people who are fraudulently not paying that tax are guilty and should pay that tax. Our provisions do that.

Another claim by the Budget Committee is that the Finance Committee has not provided real offsets for increased burdens to the general fund. My colleague from New Hampshire, chairman of the Budget Committee,

suggests that our bill offsets, including economic substance, are illusory. He is concerned that these offsets, which were also passed during the last Congress, will be dropped in conference.

Now, the Joint Committee on Taxation, as we all know--maybe some of us forget--is the official scorekeeper on tax matters in the Congress, not the Congressional Budget Office. The Finance Committee has provided tax law changes that have been scored by the Joint Committee on Taxation as fully offsetting any increased burden to the general fund. The Joint Committee on Taxation is the official scorekeeper for revenue provisions under the Congressional Budget Act. It is not the Senate Budget Committee that is the scorekeeper; it is the Joint Committee on Taxation. Section 201(g) of the Budget Act restricts the Congressional Budget Office in a manner in which it carries out its responsibilities related to revenue legislation. Section 201(g) provides, in pertinent part:

For the purposes of revenue legislation, which is income,

estate and gift, excise, and payroll taxes, considered or

enacted in any session of Congress, the Congressional Budget

Office shall use exclusively during that session of Congress

revenue estimates provided to it by the Joint Committee on

Taxation. During that session of Congress, such revenue

estimates shall be transmitted by the Congressional Budget

Office to any committee of the House of Representatives or

the Senate requesting such estimates, and shall be used by

such committees in determining such estimates.

This, then, should put to rest this debate about whether these offsets that are in my amendment and in Senator Baucus's amendment-- that is a bipartisan amendment--are real. They have been scored by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the official scorekeeper under the Congressional Budget Act for revenue purposes.

I kind of think that maybe the Budget Committee is living in an ivory tower. It is particularly troubling that this nonsense attack--that the offsets are not real--comes from a committee that doesn't have to do any of the heavy lifting to find real offsets and real savings. But instead just find reasons to complain about some other committee's work. It must be nice to be able to just pick numbers out of thin air and try to claim the numbers are real or, in this instance, somehow not real, even though the Joint Committee on Taxation scores it as revenue- neutral, or better than revenue-neutral, as reducing the deficit. But it is the Finance Committee, not the Budget Committee, that actually has to do the hard work of finding, negotiating, and drafting the policies that can pass the Senate and create these real offsets.

Yesterday, I said 40 percent of the new funding is hard trust fund money. Of course, the Finance Committee gets no credit for that effort, no credit at all. It is a ridiculous charge. It is so easy to throw rocks around here. How about dealing with constructing policy instead of throwing rocks? I would like to see some of that.

The complaints we are hearing are from a committee that has no responsibility to find real numbers, real offsets, or real savings. It reminds me of an agricultural economist telling a farmer how to farm. I suggest that those who are sitting on the fence giving this farmer--and I am an Iowa farmer--stewardship advice about how to farm should get off the fence and get some dirt under their fingernails, and I will be happy to show them how to start the tractor. And I say this as a person who has been very loyal in my membership on the Budget Committee, as well as being chairman of the Finance Committee, because out of 48 amendments that were offered to destroy the budget that came out of the Budget Committee, I supported the chairman on 47 of the 48 amendments.

Now, the suggestion was also made that we have used these revenue raisers in the previous Congress. None of the offsets included in the highway substitute have passed the Senate this year as part of any other legislation. Even if that were the case, those additional anticipated revenues are available until they are passed by both Houses and enacted into law.

There seems to be an additional concern that the offsets used in this bill would not survive a conference with the House. As a person who worked for 8 years and 3 days--from when I first introduced the bankruptcy reform bill to when the President signed the bill a month ago--if I would have ever stopped because a bill passed the Senate but somehow didn't get to the President, we would never have a bankruptcy reform bill. But we passed that bill seven or eight different times-- the conference report, plus original legislation through the Senate. How you get things done in the Senate is by sticking with it--just don't give up.

And we are doing that here. We continue to close corporate tax loopholes the same way. People on the Budget Committee are finding fault that we might pass the Senate and not get out of conference. That somehow means we are using a smokescreen. Let me suggest that on the JOBS bill last year, which I have already referred to several times in my remarks today, we passed through the Senate $39 billion of corporate tax loophole closers, and we ended up out of conference with $24 billion of that $39 billion. I don't think that is such a bad track record. If it had not been for the Senate and the bipartisan approach of the Finance Committee, we would not even have those $24 billion of loophole closers--money coming into the Federal Treasury. So you cannot just stop. Because these offsets, whether they be fraudulent use of tax dollars, nonpayment in a fraudulent way of gas tax money or other loophole closers--in all of these cases we have people finding ways to avoid paying their share of taxes that ought to be paid.

One has to keep at it. There is a constant game around here of lawyers, accountants, and investment bankers that like to game our Tax Code. It is pretty hard to keep ahead of them, but I am determined, and Senator Baucus is determined, to keep ahead of them. So I am not going to have anybody tell me we are not legitimate when we pass things through the Senate that maybe cannot survive conference because eventually they do survive conference, and eventually they are signed by the President.

The Senate cannot be subjected to the expectation of passage in the House as a standard for this body. The Senate has to focus on what is possible in the Senate, and differences will be resolved and reconciled with the other legislative body during the conference process.

As an additional point, I note it was Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas, not the Senate Finance Committee, who first proposed codification of the economic substance doctrine, which is the largest revenue provision added in the substitute bill. I would also like to recite a little of the history of this matter so we will not presume that something maybe will not get through conference because maybe it did not get through conference last October, particularly when the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee first brought up this issue.

The Senate Finance Committee began its work on tax shelter legislation in 1999. During the years 2000 and 2001, the Finance Committee released three discussion drafts to stimulate public comment on the closing of corporate tax shelters. None of these drafts contains codification of the economic substance doctrine that we are using in this amendment before the Senate right now as an offset. In May 2002, the Finance Committee reported out the Tax Shelter Transparency Act of 2002, which formed the basis for the tax shelter disclosure rules enacted in last fall's tax bill. The Tax Shelter Transparency Act did not contain codification of the economic substance doctrine.

In July of 2002, a mere 2 months after the Finance Committee reported out its bill, Chairman Thomas laid down H.R. 5095, the American Competitiveness and Corporate Accountability Act of 2002. This bill would have repealed the FSC/ETI regime and used the proceeds for corporate international tax reform. It was also the first time the Ways and Means Committee dipped its toe into the waters of tax shelter closing legislation.

H.R. 5095 parroted the disclosure provisions of the bipartisan Senate Finance Committee-reported bill, but it went one step further--it called for codification of the economic substance doctrine. So where did folks get the idea around here that somehow economic substance doctrine codification is blue smoke, intended to mislead the Senate into believing that something is

revenue-neutral when it is not because this bill is revenue-neutral as scored by the Joint Committee on Taxation.

As an aside, I remind my colleagues that this additional money comes out of the hide of tax shelter promoters and tax shelter participants, not out of the pockets of the honest middle-class working men and women of America. This is not phony money, as maybe we were led to believe. This is good tax policy.

In emphasizing that the Senate highway bill is bigger than that provided in the budget resolution, the following quote was used: ``[i]t appears the Finance Committee floor amendments include provisions quite similar to those general fund transfers that were included in last year's Senate-passed bill. Such general fund transfers do nothing to offset the deficit effect of the increased spending in that amendment.'' I want to say why that is hogwash. The Members of this body have indicated, and will vote their intent on this issue in just a few moments, to spend more than was included in the Senate budget resolution. No procedural games, gimmicks, or end runs will be needed to prove this point. As the distinguished chairman of the Senate Budget Committee indicated repeatedly during the budget process, if there are 60 votes for something, then so be it, and clearly more than 60 members of the Senate are in agreement about this budget point of order.

But we do take issue with the fact that we were accused of sending an amendment to this Floor for consideration by 100 Members of the Senate that did nothing to offset the deficit effect of increased spending. The accusation is purely false and purposely misleading. Our substitute amendment replaced trust fund and general fund receipts and contributed substantially to the deficit reduction by more than $10 billion.

Finally, to those critics of the Senate Finance Committee title, I reissue the challenge I put to them yesterday, that obviously was not listened to. It is the same challenge from last year. If they do not like our Finance Committee title, come forward and tell us they do not want any new money for their State from this highway bill. Alternatively, if they want to keep their State's extra money, find another way to get there that will yield 60 votes. I issued the challenge last year, I issued the challenge yesterday, and I reissue that challenge this very hour.

Now, I did not get any takers last year, I did not get any takers yesterday, and I do not expect to get any takers today. So once again, it is easy to complain, but we are here to do the people's business and this amendment that came out of my committee is the people's business-- it is financially responsible, doing things to close corporate tax loopholes, to be fair to middle-class working men and women, to get the job done basically of improving our highway and transportation infrastructure.

Mr. President, it saddens me to report today that another young Iowan has fallen courageously in service to his country as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Sergeant David Rice, a fire support specialist with the 1st Battalion, 5th Field Artillery Regiment, 1st Infantry Division, died on April 26 when his vehicle overturned near Muqdadiyah. He was 22 years old.

David grew up in Sioux City, IA, and attended East High School where he excelled in football, wrestling, and track and field. He joined the Army after graduating from East in 2001 and was on his second tour of duty in Iraq.

David Rice is remembered by friends and family as a hard-working, quiet leader. In memory of Sergeant Rice, I would like to recognize today all of our military men and women, like David, who have been the quiet, dedicated leaders who have helped see our country through this difficult time. My prayers go out to the family of Sergeant David Rice, his father David, his mother Laurinda, and his sister Stevie. They should know that his leadership and sacrifice have not gone unnoticed but have earned him the gratitude of a Nation.

Sergeant Angelo L. Lozada, Jr.

Mr. President, I want to discuss a transportation bill that has been several years and several congressional sessions in the making. For a very long time now, Senator Baucus and I have worked with the various authorizing committees to prudently fund the highway and transit programs. Of course, this has not been an easy process. But last year, we found a way to fund the programs in a way that enabled every State of the Union to bring home more money for needed transportation, particularly for highways. Let me repeat that because it is important. Every Member of the Senate, including those who complained about our funding mechanism, did better under our plan last year.

This year we face a different set of challenges. There are conflicts that arose in last year's conference that are still with us. The conflicts spring from three principles that have proven very difficult to reconcile. I will lay out those conflicts.

The first principle is to get a highway bill that is an improvement over current policy. That is where overwhelming majorities are in both the

House and the Senate. We need adequate funding for our transportation infrastructure. We need to do our best to meet the job, economic development, and transportation needs of the country. The authorizers say improved policy requires more trust fund money.

The second principle from conference is deficit reduction. President Bush has rightly put deficit reduction as a key objective in general and applied it to the highway program in particular. Toward that end, the administration has pegged spending at $284 billion in spending over the applicable period.

In conference, the House brought forward a third principle. They made it clear that they would not accept the use of general fund offsets to prevent deficit increases because of the highway bill.

Over the last several years it has been frustrating to see some Members advance all these principles without acknowledging the inherent conflict. They say: Senator Grassley, we need more money for my State for roads or transit. At the same time, these same Members would say: Senator Grassley, why are you paying for it in this way or that way?

So to any complainers, I issue the challenge that I issued last year: If you complain about the additional money that the Finance Committee has found for your State, explain to me how you would do it differently. Would you forgo that money for your State? If you have an alternative, explain to me how you would find the votes for your method of financing. I issued that challenge last year, and somehow I didn't get any takers. I expect complaints again this year despite the smaller numbers involved and don't expect anyone to take me up on the challenge.

Whether folks want to admit it, as we begin floor debate and conference on this bill, it will become increasingly apparent that these three principles conflict. As one who has tried and continues to try to enact a highway bill into law, I have worked very hard to grow trust fund revenues in a way that doesn't increase the deficit or require general fund offsets. While we were able to devise a floor amendment that grows the trust fund without increasing the deficit, we were not able to do so without the use of any general fund offsets. We did get 40 percent of the way there using additional fuel fraud compliance measures. We are filling in most of the $5 billion gap with a small version of the refund proposal which the administration included in its fiscal year 2006 budget.

Finance Committee investigations reveal that many of the refunds are based in fraud, and these steps will contribute to our efforts to close the tax gap. A very small amount of that gap is also bridged by changes to gas guzzler tax administration. We are still awaiting progress on additional fuel fraud measures and loophole closures and plan to fill in the $5 billion gap in conference. In the meantime, we are using other general fund offsets to do that.

Almost none of these general fund offsets are new, as nearly all were included in the Senate-passed JOBS bill last year. Two notable provisions have been added. One of those provisions is intended to improve the administration of the Internal Revenue Service's offer-in- compromise program. The second involves a leasing tax shelter abuse in the transportation sector that we refer to by the acronym SILOs. These were the schemes that allowed big corporations to claim tax deductions for bridges, pipelines, and subways that are paid for with taxpayer dollars but with no risk for the leasing company.

Congress passed the JOBS bill last fall and outlawed these SILOs but not without concessions to the interests of shelter promoters. Under that bill, SILO shelter promoters got more than a year to get their deals-in-process approved by the Department of Transportation. And, of course, I believe that is an outrage. We exerted great effort in Congress to shut down this abuse, but the transition relief in the JOBS bill is a sop to shelter promoters and an insult to American taxpayers. This amendment will end that abuse now, not a year from now.

In committee, we marked up in alignment with the President's $284 billion figure. That was the deal the authorizing committees and this committee made with Leader Frist to get the bill to the floor. In our Finance Committee markup, I indicated my intent to work on the floor with Senator Baucus, the Senate leadership, and authorizers to grow the trust fund revenues in a manner that does not negatively impact the deficit. I believe we have incorporated a Finance Committee amendment that does just that.

I also understand and agree with the House position that we should not mix general fund offsets and trust fund resources. To that end, I want the Senate to know that I commit to working further so that no general fund offsets are required to maintain a sufficient trust fund for the conference agreement.

At the markup, I also asked and I continue to ask the administration to shift its focus away from the top-line $284 billion number and toward the principle of deficit reduction. The bill before the Senate, including our recently added amendment to grow trust fund receipts, is paid for in its entirety principally by cracking down abuse and closing loopholes. In fact, this bill, as currently drafted, actually contributes positively and substantially towards deficit reduction.

I reemphasize that an exclusive focus on the top-line spending number viewed outside of a deficit reduction context will only lead to a repeat of last fall's conference gridlock. Gridlock in conference won't resolve the gridlock on our Nation's highways. So I ask all the key players at each end of Pennsylvania Avenue to focus on main street and work toward a fiscally responsible highway bill.

Mr. President, the bill imposes an excise tax, equal to 100 percent of the acquisition costs, on the taxable acquisition of any interest in an applicable insurance contract. An applicable insurance contract is any life insurance, annuity or endowment contract in which both an applicable exempt organization and any person that is not an applicable exempt organization have, directly or indirectly, held an interest in the contract (whether or not the interests are held at the same time).

An applicable exempt organization generally includes an organization that is exempt from Federal income tax by reason of being described in section 501(c)(3) (including one organized outside the United States), a government or political subdivision of a government, and an Indian tribal government.

The bill provides that an interest in an applicable insurance contract includes any right with respect to the contract, whether as an owner, beneficiary, or otherwise. An indirect interest in a contract includes an interest in an entity that, directly or indirectly, holds an interest in the contract.

Exceptions apply under the bill. An exception is provided if each person (other than the exempt organization) with an interest in the contract has an insurable interest in the insured person independent of any interest of the exempt organization. Another exception is provided if each person, other than an exempt organization, has an interest solely as a named beneficiary. An exception is also provided for a person, other than the exempt organization, with an interest as a trust beneficiary, if the beneficiary designation is purely gratuitous, or with an interest as a trustee who holds in a fiduciary capacity for an applicable exempt organization or another permitted beneficiary.

The bill provides reporting rules requiring an applicable exempt organization or other person that makes a taxable acquisition of an applicable insurance contract to file a return showing required information. A statement is required to be furnished to each person whose taxpayer identification information is required to be reported on the return. Penalties apply for failure to file the return or furnish the statement, including, in the case of intentional disregard of the return filing requirement, a penalty equal to the amount of the excise tax that has not been paid with respect to the items required to be included on the return.

The bill is effective for contracts issued after May 3, 2005. The bill requires reporting of existing life insurance, endowment and annuity contracts issued on or before that date, in which an applicable exempt organization holds an interest and which would be treated as an applicable insurance contract under the bill. This reporting is required within one year after the date of enactment.

Mr. President, the bill imposes an excise tax, equal to 100 percent of the acquisition costs, on the taxable acquisition of any interest in an applicable insurance contract. An applicable insurance contract is any life insurance, annuity or endowment contract in which both an applicable exempt organization and any person that is not an applicable exempt organization have, directly or indirectly, held an interest in the contract (whether or not the interests are held at the same time).

An applicable exempt organization generally includes an organization that is exempt from Federal income tax by reason of being described in section 501(c)(3) (including one organized outside the United States), a government or political subdivision of a government, and an Indian tribal government.

The bill provides that an interest in an applicable insurance contract includes any right with respect to the contract, whether as an owner, beneficiary, or otherwise. An indirect interest in a contract includes an interest in an entity that, directly or indirectly, holds an interest in the contract.

Exceptions apply under the bill. An exception is provided if each person (other than the exempt organization) with an interest in the contract has an insurable interest in the insured person independent of any interest of the exempt organization. Another exception is provided if each person, other than an exempt organization, has an interest solely as a named beneficiary. An exception is also provided for a person, other than the exempt organization, with an interest as a trust beneficiary, if the beneficiary designation is purely gratuitous, or with an interest as a trustee who holds in a fiduciary capacity for an applicable exempt organization or another permitted beneficiary.

The bill provides reporting rules requiring an applicable exempt organization or other person that makes a taxable acquisition of an applicable insurance contract to file a return showing required information. A statement is required to be furnished to each person whose taxpayer identification information is required to be reported on the return. Penalties apply for failure to file the return or furnish the statement, including, in the case of intentional disregard of the return filing requirement, a penalty equal to the amount of the excise tax that has not been paid with respect to the items required to be included on the return.

The bill is effective for contracts issued after May 3, 2005. The bill requires reporting of existing life insurance, endowment and annuity contracts issued on or before that date, in which an applicable exempt organization holds an interest and which would be treated as an applicable insurance contract under the bill. This reporting is required within one year after the date of enactment.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a fellow Iowan who has fallen in service to his country. SGT. Robert J. ``Jason'' Gore of Nevada, IA, was killed on April 21, when insurgents shot down his helicopter. Jason had already completed one tour in Iraq before he began his tour as a security guard for Blackwater USA. He was only 23 years old and is survived by a mother, father, brother, and grandparents.

Jason grew in Nevada, IA, and chose to attend St. John's Northwestern Military Academy for his last 2 years of high school. Sergeant Gore excelled there in academics, athletics, and leadership, and he was described as a kind young man with a purpose-driven life and a great enthusiasm for the opportunity to serve in the military.

Sergeant Gore's patriotism for his country and zeal for life must be recognized and appreciated today and in days to come. In his honor, I urge all Americans to contemplate their love for this great country and to think about the patriotic ideals which Jason held in such high esteem. In memory of his life and his great sacrifice so willingly made, we are called to rekindle in ourselves the fiery devotion and enthusiasm of SGT. Robert J. Gore. I offer my condolences to the family and friends of Jason who have felt this loss most deeply. Today, their son, brother, grandson, and friend stands as a beacon of enduring patriotism, deserving of emulation by all Americans.

Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the students from Central Academy in Des Moines, IA who recently participated in the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution national finals in Washington, DC The annual competition is the culmination of the students' extensive study of the American system of constitutional democracy. The team from Central Academy won the State competition, earning the honor of representing Iowa in the national finals from April 30 through May 2, 2005. I am also proud to say that they won a unit award for their impressive performance on unit 3.

Unfortunately, I was in Iowa during the national finals this year so I was unable to meet with the students from Iowa as I customarily do. However, I am always impressed by how knowledgeable and politically astute the students are who have been through this program and I understand this year's group of students was no exception. I know Iowans can be very proud to have had them representing Iowa.

The We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution program is run by the Center for Civic Education with the help of federal funding. The program provides an excellent curriculum and valuable professional development opportunities for teachers, giving students a solid grounding in the history, philosophy, and practice of our American system of constitutional democracy. The result is young people who are more politically aware, more engaged, and more equipped to be good citizens.

In closing, I would like to recognize the Central Academy students who participated in this program, Emily Burney, Julia Busiek, Kate Conlow, Tim Di Iulio, Jon Hill, Lisa Jefferson, Alix Liftka-Reselman, Phillip Miller, Ben Miller-Todd, David Nolan, Caroline Rendon, Andrew Tatge, Erin Turner, Emily Varn, and their teacher, Michael Schaffer. They can all be very proud of their knowledge and accomplishments. I would also like to recognize the We the People district coordinator, Ivette Bender, and the state coordinator for Iowa, Linda Martin, for their hard work and dedication to the We the People program.

Mr. President, I first compliment the chairman of the committee, Senator Gregg, for his outstanding work in getting a budget before the Senate because that didn't happen last year. I am so glad we have a budget because it is discipline for the Congress, and anybody knows, when it comes to spending money, Congress needs discipline. So I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.

Of course, a budget resolution is more or less a blueprint. It sets the overall level of spending and also for revenue of the Federal Government. The budget itself does not change any law. As I said, it is a blueprint, ground rules, for all of the other spending and revenue legislation that will be considered in the Senate yet this year.

Under the Senate rules, any bill that exceeds the level set in the budget may be subject to a point of order that would require a 60-vote supermajority. That is where the discipline comes--when people want to spend more money without raising taxes or taking the money from some other program, then they would be beyond the budget, and consequently a point of order could be raised. It is very difficult to get a 60-vote supermajority in this body. Consequently, it keeps spending within the budget. So it is budget discipline that Congress needs.

By imposing the supermajority requirement, the budget encourages the Senate to stay within these overall limits that are in the document we are going to vote on tonight, while at the

same time providing the opportunity to exceed those limits if a supermajority can be gotten. And when there are extenuating circumstances, you have to assume extenuating circumstances get that sort of a vote in the Senate.

The annual budget process is often the subject of much controversy, as I think you can tell from the debate tonight. I want to take a moment and focus on a number of specific provisions as they relate to the committee that I chair, the Senate Finance Committee, which has the responsibility for all of the legislation that affects Medicaid and Medicare, as well as everything dealing with the raising of taxes or the decreasing of taxes involved with the income tax code.

The budget resolution conference report provides reconciliation instruction--in other words, mandating that the Finance Committee, like it mandates other committees to do similar things in their jurisdiction, to achieve $10 billion in program savings and $70 billion in tax relief.

While these instructions do not actually require the Finance Committee to enact any specific policy--that is our option how we meet these goals--there are a number of policies that are assumed and I think realistic within the numbers that are provided in the budget resolution.

The budget provides for $10 billion in savings from the Finance Committee, and I surely and confidently commit the Finance Committee to make every effort to work in a bipartisan fashion where we keep in mind principles that guide us in producing a better Medicaid Program.

The Finance Committee will look at proposed savings that will be shared equally--I should not say equally but shared proportionately between the Federal Government and the States because the Medicaid Program is a Federal-State partnership.

States are in trouble. We want to help them. We want to emphasize flexibility for the States through voluntary options that States can exercise to get more bang for the Medicaid dollar and even save money in the process, maybe in some instances, through flexibility, even serving a larger population than they now serve but with a more efficient expenditure of that money. The Finance Committee will do this while making a commitment not to eliminate coverage for Medicaid beneficiaries.

I look forward to taking action to improve Medicaid. Doing nothing is far worse for Medicaid. If we do not eliminate wasteful practices, if we do not provide States with this necessary flexibility, if we do not provide States the relief they are asking for, they are simply going to cut whole groups of people off the rolls to make their budget ends meet within their State legislative prerogative.

I recall reading in the paper a couple of months ago, I think it was the State of Mississippi found itself in a position where it could not afford everything the Federal Government mandated on Medicaid, and they just dropped 55,000 people from the rolls. They should not have to do that, they do not want to do that, and we can help them not to do that by giving more flexibility to the States.

That is why I say doing nothing is far worse for Medicaid beneficiaries than what we are going to attempt to do in the next few months through this reconciliation instruction to provide a rational, reasoned approach to protecting and strengthening the Medicaid Program. That is what we will do in meeting our instructions.

I am going to leave Medicaid now and go to the tax relief portions in this budget and comment on two aspects: The amount of relief for the budget period--that is the next 5 years--and the use of reconciliation to bring about the tax relief that a majority of this Senate is going to say we need.

Before I start with the numbers, I want to put in context the revenue side of the budget. Some have argued, and particularly we have heard this even tonight, that bipartisan tax relief has gutted the revenue base permanently, and that is hogwash. They argue that this change is a reason to raise taxes. People want to raise taxes, can you believe that, Mr. President, instead of not extending the tax relief that was voted in 2001, 2003, and I guess some in 2004?

The facts, according to the Congressional Budget Office--and remember, they work for everybody, Republicans and Democrats; they are not Republican or Democrat, they are professionals. Their statistics show otherwise.

I want to put a chart up and have my colleagues concentrate on Congressional Budget Office data, and this covers the period of time from 1960 to 2015, so we get a historical response to people who are saying we have permanently gutted the tax base.

This chart shows the volatility of revenue and its relationship to economic performance. When we suffer economically--and that is the green line on the chart--as related to the ups and downs in the growth of the economy, the gross domestic product, it shows that we suffered economically. You can see the red lines going up and down being revenue coming into the Federal Treasury in relationship to the growth or the sinking of the economy over this historical period of time. Then we also see when the economy grows, revenues go up. When the economy sinks, obviously, revenue coming into the Federal Government goes down.

We have heard so much about what this administration has done to the revenue base of the country. What we see in the first 4 years of the Bush administration--so you have to look at the years 2001 to 2005--you will remember we inherited a recession. I hope people on the other side of the aisle realize that the NASDAQ lost 50 percent of its value in the year 2000. I hope people remember that this economy started in a recession 3 months before President Bush was ever sworn in for the first time. So the bubble broke. We had those corporate scandals that date back to the midnineties becoming public in the year 2001. And then we can see from the chart that the uptick in the economy started late in the Bush administration and continues today.

The Congressional Budget Office shows, as we can see, revenue is coming back. So let's not confuse cause and effect. The tax reduction we voted on in 2001 and 2003 has helped the economy recover and the Federal Treasury is benefiting. So we have to look at what is projected out, starting this year and into the future.

We see the economy fairly stable for the next few years, and we see the revenue base high above the growth of the economy. So let's be clear, undertaxation of the American people is not the source of our budget problems. And all the people over here who think we ought to raise taxes, I wonder when they have their town meetings how many people in their town meetings say: I am undertaxed; I want to pay more taxes. I do not have people coming to my town meeting saying that. I think what the American people are saying is that Congress overspends, and this budget is all about discipline in spending. Undertaxation, I hope my colleagues understand over there, is not the source of our problems.

Now, let's start with a basic number. When the Senate Budget Committee considered the resolution a few weeks ago, Republicans laid out our plan for reconciled tax relief. This plan was a product of discussion with members of the Republican caucus, just like I presume the Democrats have discussions about tax policy among their people.

Our objective now is to preserve current law, levels of tax relief that were voted in 2001 and 2003, and anybody who says you should eliminate the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, they are not saying eliminate the tax cuts, they are saying raise your taxes. That is what they are saying.

Our plan centers on a seamless extension of tax relief provisions that began in 2001. It is critical that these provisions be rationalized in a commonsense way. Assuring taxpayers of the continuity of promised tax benefits should be one of our highest priorities.

Taxpayers should not face a reversal of the level of tax relief we have delivered. Certainty of tax policy is absolutely necessary for economic growth, and economic growth is absolutely necessary for creating jobs. This objective is critical with respect to the widely applicable provisions dealing with capital gains and dividends, small business expensing, low-income savings, the alternative minimum tax, and college tuition deductibility.

Do those people over there who say we ought to eliminate the tax cuts of

2001 and 2003 think we ought to eliminate the college tuition deductibility? I do not think so. But that is where they would take us. Millions of taxpayers from all walks of life have come to rely upon these tax relief provisions, and they are going to expire if we do not do something about it. They are going to get an automatic tax increase without even a vote of Congress if we do not do something. We should have guts enough to vote for tax increases if we want to, not just sit idly by and let taxes go up.

Some on the other side have been critical of the $70 billion in reconciled tax relief that is in this budget resolution, as was Social Security reform. At my hearing this week we heard a lot of complaining about so-called Social Security reform, but we do not get a lot of answers from the other side on Social Security or on taxes. We do not get problem solving. We do not get any constructive dialogue.

Where is the Democratic plan for tax relief? Has anyone seen it? All we hear are criticisms. How many times have we heard about AMT? Answer: We have heard we ought to be doing something about AMT plenty of times. There is an AMT problem. I have a couple of charts that tell the story. I would like to have my colleagues look at the baseline.

I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

I want my colleagues to look at the baseline. We can see the orange line. That is the individual taxes based on historical average.

The AMT is part of the individual income tax. Historically, individual income taxes have been at about 8 or 9 percent. That is the red line. The AMT and the regular tax balloon proportionately, under current law, over the next 40 years is going to go up very dramatically. This balloon effect is due to the sunset of bipartisan tax relief and AMT.

Now let us focus a little bit closer. Let us look at the next chart. This chart shows that extension of the bipartisan tax relief still leaves individual taxes at record levels. The blue line shows individual taxes are going to be growing very dramatically. The chart also shows that fixing the AMT leaves individual income taxes at record levels, as we can see from the orange line. What we can see is we seriously do have an alternative minimum tax problem and fixing it will not gut the revenue base over the long term. It is common sense that an unfair tax such as the alternative minimum tax, that is out of control, should be fixed without regard to offsets.

Common sense plays out on the budget side as well. We have even heard incorrect assertions that this budget does not address the alternative minimum tax problem. Well, guess what. In this budget, there is room for extending the current patch or hold harmless for millions of families facing an alternative minimum tax.

We hear all about the fact that the budget does not have anything to do with the alternative minimum tax. Well, it does. I just said it does. It is part of it. But where is the Democratic plan for alternative minimum tax relief? Where is the response for even the current period we are talking about in this budget? I have been looking for a Democratic plan and I cannot find it.

This budget contains plans for tax relief. The reconciliation instructions give us the resources to maintain current law tax relief. Put another way, the reconciliation instruction is our best means to protect against the tax hike automatically foisted upon millions of American taxpayers.

Now I turn to the second aspect of the tax relief portion of the budget. We will hear a lot of criticism against the use of reconciliation for tax relief. It was not an easy choice. I prefer regular order in the Senate, but recent tax legislative history in the Senate suggests that the reconciliation option is an important tool to have at our disposal.

With partisan obstructionism on the part of Democratic leadership, many regular order tax relief packages over the last 2 years have been stalled in the Senate. Even tax relief packages that the Democrat leadership claims to support encounter that sort of partisan obstructionism.

Members will recall that several cloture votes were required to get the bipartisan FSC/ETI legislation through the Congress last October. Likewise, we were unable to go to conference with the House on the CARE Act and other popular tax relief packages because of Democratic leadership objections. The situation has only become worse this year. The climate may still be more difficult if the Democratic leadership acts on the threats they have talked about of shutting down the Senate if the controversy over judicial nominations is brought to the forefront. From a practical standpoint, there is a significant risk that reconciled tax relief may be the only tax relief vehicle that can pass the Senate in this environment. I hope that is not the case. It is prudent to consider a possibility. Because of this hostile partisan environment, a reconciliation bill may be the only known path to preserve the tax relief provided during the last 4 years. For this reason, our caucus viewed the reconciliation numbers as a comprehensive blueprint for preserving current law levels of tax relief.

There is $36 billion of tax relief for regular order tax relief we will have to offset. This amount is meant to cover packages such as a comprehensive energy bill.

What it comes down to is this: We need to take care of legislative business. We need to continue the tax relief promised to the American people, but we are better off with a plan that prevents tax hikes. I am pleased we have this plan.

Once again, I urge my colleagues to support the budget resolution.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of Robert Portman to be our next United States Trade Representative.

Congress first mandated the appointment of a special representative for trade negotiation in 1962. Since that time, our trade representative has played a vital role in shaping much of our international economic policy. Today, it remains an important position that requires a unique blend of technical and political skills for success.

In that regard, we are fortunate to have Rob Portman as the President's nominee. Congressman Portman has a strong commitment to public service, having served the people of Ohio in the House of Representatives for the past 12 years. His thoughtful consideration of complex issues and his determination to achieve sound public policy have made him an effective leader. He has played major roles in pension, tax, and IRS reform. He is well known for his leadership in the fight against drug abuse. And, as a member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, Congressman Portman has been intimately involved in a number of key international trade policy initiatives.

There is strong support for the nominee among the business and agriculture communities. In an open letter sent to Congress on April 18, literally hundreds of companies, associations and Chambers of Commerce expressed their desire to see Congressman Portman confirmed as the next United States Trade Representative, noting that he ``is the right person for the job. During his six terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, he has distinguished himself as a thoughtful and respected leader on international trade and investment issues. Moreover, he has demonstrated a spirit of cooperation that will be essential in the months ahead as Congress considers many trade issues on its agenda.

Similar sentiments are expressed by over 60 representatives of the agriculture sector. In a letter dated April 19 they note that ``Representative Portman has long championed bipartisan solutions to trade'' adding that he ``will bring tremendous talent and experience to this important post. We applaud Representative Portman's deep commitment to enforcing trade agreements and believe his desire to achieve meaningful results for American agriculture and agribusiness is precisely the leadership that is needed in the dynamic and sometimes difficult to navigate world of agriculture trade.''

There is strong interest in moving this nomination quickly. There are a number of important events coming up over the next few weeks including a meeting of the World Trade Organization ministers in early May. So, I hope we will be able to confirm this nominee quickly.

There is a long tradition of legislative and executive branch cooperation on international economic policy. The importance of working together became most evident following the passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 which helped plunge our economy into the Great Depression. In 1934 President Roosevelt recognized that high tariff barriers were strangling our economy. To spur economic growth, he sought and received legislative authority to negotiate reductions in tariff barriers.

That bill, the Trade Agreements Act, embodied the basic partnership between the legislative and executive branches of Government that we know today as Trade Promotion Authority.

It is a partnership that has served this Nation well for the better part of the last century, and hopefully will continue to do so for the next.

But the battle for economic freedom is far from over. We cannot afford to return to the tyranny of tariffs embodied by Smoot-Hawley. Decisions we make in the near future on economic policy will have a significant impact on generations to come. They are decisions we cannot take lightly. Strong leadership at the Office of the United States Trade Representative is key. Congress will soon be considering free trade agreements with Central America, the Dominican Republic and Bahrain.

We also have a number of important bilateral and regional negotiations underway that will bring significant benefits to the U.S. economy. And, perhaps most important, are on-going negotiations at the World Trade Organization. Successfully concluding these negotiations and ensuring their implementation will take a skilled champion of America's interests. I am confident that Rob Portman will effectively fill that role.

I hope my colleagues will join me in strongly supporting Congressman Portman to be our next United States Trade Representative.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter dated April 28, 2005.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The Jetseta Gage Prevention and Deterrence of Crimes Against Children Act of 2005''. This is a very important bill that will protect our children from the vilest forms of abuse and murder.

The urgency of passing legislation of this nature has been growing for the past few months. The murders of Jessica Lunsford, Sara Lunde, and Jetseta Gage, who was from my home State of Iowa, have been thoroughly covered in the news in recent weeks. Each of these murders was committed by a repeat sex offender. These cases should open our eyes to the necessity of passing a bill that will give sex offenders tougher penalties for the crimes they commit.

I would like to take a moment to talk about the murder of the Iowa girl this bill is named for, Jetseta Marrie Gage. On March 24 of this year, Jetseta, a beautiful 10-year-old girl from Cedar Rapids, IA, went missing from her home. Within 12 hours of her disappearance, even before a body had been found, law enforcement officials took Roger Bentley into custody, a man who had been previously convicted for committing lascivious acts with a minor. Unfortunately, this man only served a little over one year in prison for his previous sex crime conviction. Two days later, due to a tip received by a woman responding to the Amber Alert, Jetseta's body was found stuffed in a cabinet in an abandoned mobile home. She had been sexually molested and suffocated with a plastic bag. I can't help but wonder whether Jetseta would still be alive today had her killer received stricter penalties for his first offense. It breaks my heart to hear about cases like this, but it's even more disheartening when you know that it might have been prevented with adequate sentencing.

My bill will help change this by protecting children in three ways. It will establish stiff mandatory minimum sentences, increase penalties for certain crimes against children, and reform the habeas corpus system for child murderers. Let me now discuss these provisions in detail.

The first section on mandatory minimums will guarantee punishment for criminals who commit violent crimes against children. I know that some of my colleagues have concerns about mandatory minimums, especially in the context of drug sentences. I understand that concern, but in-light of the recent Supreme Court's decision in the Booker/FanFan case, something must be done to insure that sexual predators receive the types of sentences fitting for their crimes. In the Booker/FanFan case, the Court held that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are no longer mandatory, thus federal judges have unfettered discretion in sentencing. The bill establishes the following mandatory minimums for violent crimes against children: One, where the crime of violence results in death of a child under 15 years, the offender will receive the death penalty or life in prison; two, where the crime of violence is kidnapping, sexual assault, or maiming or results in serious bodily injury the offender will receive a prison term from 30 years to life; three, where the crime of violence results in bodily injury of a child under 12 years, the offender will serve a prison term from 15 years to life; four, where a criminal uses a dangerous weapon in the commission of a crime against a child, the offender will receive a sentence of 10 years to life; and lastly, five, in any other case of a crime against a child, the offender will receive from 2 years to life.

The second section of the bill increases the penalties for sexual offenses against children. The penalties for these crimes need to be adjusted to adequately reflect the gravity of these crimes and the damage they do to children. The bill increases penalties for the following nine federal crimes: aggravated sexual abuse of children, abusive sexual contact with children, sexual abuse of children resulting in death, sexual exploitation of children, activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of children, activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography, using misleading domain names to direct children to material harmful to minors on the internet, production of sexually explicit depictions of children, and conduct relating to child prostitution.

The third section of the bill will ensure fair and expeditious Federal collateral review of convictions for killing a child. It would do this by reforming the habeas corpus system for this crime. For example, in district court parties will be required to move for an evidentiary hearing within 90 days of the completion of briefing, the court must act on the motion within 30 days, and the hearing must begin 60 days later with completion within 150 days. In addition, this section will require that district-court review be completed within 15 months of the completion of briefing and that appellate review must be completed within 120 days of the completion of briefing. Finally, this provision limits Federal review on cases to those claims that present meaningful evidence that the defendant did not commit the crime.

The provisions of this bill are strictly designed to protect our children. I doubt that the members of this body, many of whom have young children of their own, will have any objections to ensuring that perpetrators of crimes against children receive tougher penalties for their acts. It is unfortunate

that it took the recent tragic murders of those 3 beautiful young girls for a law of this nature to be proposed, but I strongly believe that a vote for this bill could save the lives of children in the future. We have an obligation as legislators to protect our citizenry. We have an obligation as adults to protect our youth. We have an obligation as parents to protect our children. I urge my colleagues to join me in doing just that by voting in favor of this bill.

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

Mr. President, the capital cost to install new renewable generation capacity is three to ten

times more expensive than the cost to install conventional gas generation. Given these costs, Federal production tax credits have been available over the past decade to investor-owned utilities and private developers for renewable generation from wind, closed loop biomass and poultry waste. I worked in the JOBs bill last year to extend these tax incentives and expand them to additional resources, such as open loop biomass, animal waste nutrients, landfill gas, municipal solid waste, solar, geothermal and small hydro irrigation systems. I also fought to extend these incentives to electric cooperatives and public power systems, and today am releasing a new proposal, ``Clean Energy Bonds,'' that provides them with an important financing tool.

Tax incentives for renewable and clean coal generation will be an important part of a balanced energy bill that the Senate will soon assemble. Such incentives enhance energy security by providing for diverse fuel choices, provide options in the face of high prices of oil and gas, and are a key component of ensuring that utilities can meet clean air requirements and climate change goals. The Administration has asserted that incentives for renewable generation are necessary for a balanced energy bill. And, all electricity generators recently agreed in a MOU with the Department of Energy on voluntary goals that address climate change and support President Bush in his efforts to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission intensity of the U.S. economy. As part of the MOU, the Department of Energy and all signatories agreed to promote policies that ``provide investment stimulus on an equitable basis to all segments of the power sector in order to accelerate use of existing GHG-reducing technologies. . . .''

As the MOU recognizes, electric cooperatives and public power systems need access to incentives in order to provide the latest clean technologies and renewable generation to their communities, just as the private sector does. Many of these utilities are ideally located to take advantage of opportunities to generate from these primarily rural resources. These utilities cannot, however, offset the high cost of these resources through the conventional tax incentives Congress has provided to the private sector. Without these incentives, such generation is simply unaffordable for the consumers they serve.

Electric cooperatives and public power systems are not-for-profit, and therefore do not pay federal income tax. Not-for-profit utilities do not pay shareholders. Cooperatives return revenues above cost of service to their members, and public power systems use their revenue to reduce rates or reinvest in utility infrastructure. Traditional tax incentives do not work for not-for-profit utilities as they have no federally taxable income to offset. In order for Congress to fully realize the benefits of tax incentives that are designed to make renewable energy economic, an incentive tailored to the unique characteristics of not-for-profit utilities is required. All three utility sectors must be able to participate in incentives in order for emerging technologies to fully realize their potential and become economic.

Clean energy bonds can provide electric cooperatives and public power systems with an incentive comparable to the production tax credits that are available for the private sector. The bill would make technologies that are eligible for the production tax credit under section 45 eligible for the bond.

Under the bill, the electric cooperative, cooperative lender or municipal utility (``issuer'') would issue the clean energy bond. With a conventional bond, the issuer must pay interest to the bondholder. But with a clean energy bond, the Federal Government pays a tax credit to the bondholder in lieu of the issuer paying interest to the bondholder. Treasury sets the rate of the credit in an amount that permits the issuance of the tax credit bond without discount and without interest cost to the issuer. The bondholder can deduct the amount of the tax credit from their total income tax liability. The bonds are taxable, so if the credit is worth $100 and the bondholder is in the 35 percent bracket, the bondholder would deduct $65 from their tax liability.

Public power systems have long used bonds to finance projects for infrastructure improvements and upgrades. By creating familiar financial instruments for public power systems and electric cooperatives to use, the bond market will have the faith and understanding to purchase these financial products because of the longstanding success of municipal bonds.

The Clean Energy Bonds Act of 2005 will become an important part of a balanced energy bill. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill that is needed to push renewable generation options further than production tax credits alone.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The Jetseta Gage Prevention and Deterrence of Crimes Against Children Act of 2005''. This is a very important bill that will protect our children from the vilest forms of abuse and murder.

The urgency of passing legislation of this nature has been growing for the past few months. The murders of Jessica Lunsford, Sara Lunde, and Jetseta Gage, who was from my home State of Iowa, have been thoroughly covered in the news in recent weeks. Each of these murders was committed by a repeat sex offender. These cases should open our eyes to the necessity of passing a bill that will give sex offenders tougher penalties for the crimes they commit.

I would like to take a moment to talk about the murder of the Iowa girl this bill is named for, Jetseta Marrie Gage. On March 24 of this year, Jetseta, a beautiful 10-year-old girl from Cedar Rapids, IA, went missing from her home. Within 12 hours of her disappearance, even before a body had been found, law enforcement officials took Roger Bentley into custody, a man who had been previously convicted for committing lascivious acts with a minor. Unfortunately, this man only served a little over one year in prison for his previous sex crime conviction. Two days later, due to a tip received by a woman responding to the Amber Alert, Jetseta's body was found stuffed in a cabinet in an abandoned mobile home. She had been sexually molested and suffocated with a plastic bag. I can't help but wonder whether Jetseta would still be alive today had her killer received stricter penalties for his first offense. It breaks my heart to hear about cases like this, but it's even more disheartening when you know that it might have been prevented with adequate sentencing.

My bill will help change this by protecting children in three ways. It will establish stiff mandatory minimum sentences, increase penalties for certain crimes against children, and reform the habeas corpus system for child murderers. Let me now discuss these provisions in detail.

The first section on mandatory minimums will guarantee punishment for criminals who commit violent crimes against children. I know that some of my colleagues have concerns about mandatory minimums, especially in the context of drug sentences. I understand that concern, but in-light of the recent Supreme Court's decision in the Booker/FanFan case, something must be done to insure that sexual predators receive the types of sentences fitting for their crimes. In the Booker/FanFan case, the Court held that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are no longer mandatory, thus federal judges have unfettered discretion in sentencing. The bill establishes the following mandatory minimums for violent crimes against children: One, where the crime of violence results in death of a child under 15 years, the offender will receive the death penalty or life in prison; two, where the crime of violence is kidnapping, sexual assault, or maiming or results in serious bodily injury the offender will receive a prison term from 30 years to life; three, where the crime of violence results in bodily injury of a child under 12 years, the offender will serve a prison term from 15 years to life; four, where a criminal uses a dangerous weapon in the commission of a crime against a child, the offender will receive a sentence of 10 years to life; and lastly, five, in any other case of a crime against a child, the offender will receive from 2 years to life.

The second section of the bill increases the penalties for sexual offenses against children. The penalties for these crimes need to be adjusted to adequately reflect the gravity of these crimes and the damage they do to children. The bill increases penalties for the following nine federal crimes: aggravated sexual abuse of children, abusive sexual contact with children, sexual abuse of children resulting in death, sexual exploitation of children, activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of children, activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography, using misleading domain names to direct children to material harmful to minors on the internet, production of sexually explicit depictions of children, and conduct relating to child prostitution.

The third section of the bill will ensure fair and expeditious Federal collateral review of convictions for killing a child. It would do this by reforming the habeas corpus system for this crime. For example, in district court parties will be required to move for an evidentiary hearing within 90 days of the completion of briefing, the court must act on the motion within 30 days, and the hearing must begin 60 days later with completion within 150 days. In addition, this section will require that district-court review be completed within 15 months of the completion of briefing and that appellate review must be completed within 120 days of the completion of briefing. Finally, this provision limits Federal review on cases to those claims that present meaningful evidence that the defendant did not commit the crime.

The provisions of this bill are strictly designed to protect our children. I doubt that the members of this body, many of whom have young children of their own, will have any objections to ensuring that perpetrators of crimes against children receive tougher penalties for their acts. It is unfortunate

that it took the recent tragic murders of those 3 beautiful young girls for a law of this nature to be proposed, but I strongly believe that a vote for this bill could save the lives of children in the future. We have an obligation as legislators to protect our citizenry. We have an obligation as adults to protect our youth. We have an obligation as parents to protect our children. I urge my colleagues to join me in doing just that by voting in favor of this bill.

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

Mr. President, the capital cost to install new renewable generation capacity is three to ten

times more expensive than the cost to install conventional gas generation. Given these costs, Federal production tax credits have been available over the past decade to investor-owned utilities and private developers for renewable generation from wind, closed loop biomass and poultry waste. I worked in the JOBs bill last year to extend these tax incentives and expand them to additional resources, such as open loop biomass, animal waste nutrients, landfill gas, municipal solid waste, solar, geothermal and small hydro irrigation systems. I also fought to extend these incentives to electric cooperatives and public power systems, and today am releasing a new proposal, ``Clean Energy Bonds,'' that provides them with an important financing tool.

Tax incentives for renewable and clean coal generation will be an important part of a balanced energy bill that the Senate will soon assemble. Such incentives enhance energy security by providing for diverse fuel choices, provide options in the face of high prices of oil and gas, and are a key component of ensuring that utilities can meet clean air requirements and climate change goals. The Administration has asserted that incentives for renewable generation are necessary for a balanced energy bill. And, all electricity generators recently agreed in a MOU with the Department of Energy on voluntary goals that address climate change and support President Bush in his efforts to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission intensity of the U.S. economy. As part of the MOU, the Department of Energy and all signatories agreed to promote policies that ``provide investment stimulus on an equitable basis to all segments of the power sector in order to accelerate use of existing GHG-reducing technologies. . . .''

As the MOU recognizes, electric cooperatives and public power systems need access to incentives in order to provide the latest clean technologies and renewable generation to their communities, just as the private sector does. Many of these utilities are ideally located to take advantage of opportunities to generate from these primarily rural resources. These utilities cannot, however, offset the high cost of these resources through the conventional tax incentives Congress has provided to the private sector. Without these incentives, such generation is simply unaffordable for the consumers they serve.

Electric cooperatives and public power systems are not-for-profit, and therefore do not pay federal income tax. Not-for-profit utilities do not pay shareholders. Cooperatives return revenues above cost of service to their members, and public power systems use their revenue to reduce rates or reinvest in utility infrastructure. Traditional tax incentives do not work for not-for-profit utilities as they have no federally taxable income to offset. In order for Congress to fully realize the benefits of tax incentives that are designed to make renewable energy economic, an incentive tailored to the unique characteristics of not-for-profit utilities is required. All three utility sectors must be able to participate in incentives in order for emerging technologies to fully realize their potential and become economic.

Clean energy bonds can provide electric cooperatives and public power systems with an incentive comparable to the production tax credits that are available for the private sector. The bill would make technologies that are eligible for the production tax credit under section 45 eligible for the bond.

Under the bill, the electric cooperative, cooperative lender or municipal utility (``issuer'') would issue the clean energy bond. With a conventional bond, the issuer must pay interest to the bondholder. But with a clean energy bond, the Federal Government pays a tax credit to the bondholder in lieu of the issuer paying interest to the bondholder. Treasury sets the rate of the credit in an amount that permits the issuance of the tax credit bond without discount and without interest cost to the issuer. The bondholder can deduct the amount of the tax credit from their total income tax liability. The bonds are taxable, so if the credit is worth $100 and the bondholder is in the 35 percent bracket, the bondholder would deduct $65 from their tax liability.

Public power systems have long used bonds to finance projects for infrastructure improvements and upgrades. By creating familiar financial instruments for public power systems and electric cooperatives to use, the bond market will have the faith and understanding to purchase these financial products because of the longstanding success of municipal bonds.

The Clean Energy Bonds Act of 2005 will become an important part of a balanced energy bill. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill that is needed to push renewable generation options further than production tax credits alone.

Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

First, let me say I am profoundly disappointed by the way this issue has been handled over the past several weeks.

My staff has been working hard with some of the proponents of this legislation to fully understand the pros and cons of the legislation.

In fact, a meeting was held with the proponents just prior to a press release being issued saying that a hold was being placed on a nominee unless a vote were taken on the bill.

I thought we were making good progress. Needless to say, I was very surprised to learn of that development. No one asked me about it.

Let's be clear, I share concerns about China's economic policies and the impact of those policies on international trade and the U.S. economy.

At this point, however, I'm not convinced that the Bayh amendment is the best possible policy response we can provide to China's economic policies.

The amendment would substantively change United States trade law, and it is imperative that the repercussions be fully understood before we move ahead with the proposed change.

That's why the committee process should not be circumvented. The Finance Committee has jurisdiction over issues of international trade, and its expertise should be brought to bear on any trade issue before its consideration by the full Senate.

When that process is not respected, we run the risk of adopting ill- thought out policy which in the end could undermine the very intent of legislation that is rushed in as an amendment, as Senator Bayh proposes we do in this case.

For starters, I understand that the bill may not even be necessary, as it's possible this change could be implemented administratively rather than legislatively.

We should explore with Administration officials the feasibility of implementing an administrative change, what that would entail and how that might best be accomplished.

The proposed legislation doesn't give the Commerce Department any flexibility to develop appropriate regulations and procedures to implement this provision.

Such a significant change from established practice should at least incorporate sufficient flexibility so that it can be implemented properly. Otherwise, proponents run the risk of undermining their very goal.

Why wouldn't proponents want to ensure that such a significant change in the operation of our trade laws is implemented properly?

Again, that's why the Finance Committee should have the opportunity to address the details.

There are other repercussions that should be examined. How does the proposed legislation relate to China's accession to the WTO for example?

Is it consistent with the terms of our bilateral agreement on China's WTO accession?

Those questions should be answered before we move ahead on this legislation.

Another very serious issue is the relationship between this legislation and existing U.S. trade law.

It's quite possible that by adopting this bill we could undermine the application of U.S. antidumping law, and I doubt any of my colleagues would advocate that result.

It is even possible that this amendment could force us to relinquish application of the nonmarket antidumping methodology in dumping cases.

That question needs to be addressed thoroughly before we move ahead on this legislation. Proponents may offer blanket assertions to the contrary, but that is not sufficient, in my view.

We should not run the risk of undermining our trade laws by pushing this amendment onto a bill today.

I hope Senator Bayh will reconsider his decision and withdraw the amendment.

If not, I hope my colleagues will join with me in opposing his amendment until we can fully appreciate its repercussions.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize today the passing of a fellow Iowan who has fallen in service to this country. Sergeant John W. Miller, of the Iowa Army National Guard Company, A, 224th Engineer Battalion, was killed by a sniper on April 12 in Ar Ramadi, Iraq, while providing security for a road-clearing operation. He was 21 years old and is survived by a father, Dennis, two brothers, James and Nathan, and a sister, Jessica, who live in the Burlington, IA area.

John Miller attended West Burlington High School and received his high school diploma from Des Moines Area Community College. He joined the Iowa Army National Guard in March of 2002 and was mobilized to go to Iraq in October of 2004. He was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star, Purple Heart, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Army Good Conduct Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal and the Armed Forces Reserve Medal with ``M'' device for Mobilization. He was also promoted to sergeant posthumously.

I offer my condolences to John's family and friends. Sergeant Miller's battalion leader wrote that John ``will

never be forgotten.'' I ask all of my colleagues and fellow Americans to join me in fulfilling that promise of remembrance. We must remember John and his comrades who have fallen, their lives, and their sacrifices; for a Nation that forgets her heroes will lose her direction, her strength, and her spirit.

Mr. President, today I introduce Senate Bill 930, the Food and Drug Administration Safety Act of 2005. I am pleased that Senator Dodd is co-sponsoring another piece of drug safety legislation with me. This legislation is part of a sustained effort to restore public confidence in the Federal Government's food and drug safety agency. Enactment of this bill will be another meaningful step toward greater accountability and transparency at the FDA. Importantly, this legislation provides the FDA with some much needed authorities to ensure the safety and efficacy of drugs for the long haul.

The Food and Drug Administration cannot always serve the American people and the interests of the drug industry at the same time. These two interests are often at odds with each other. When there is a conflict the American people should win out each and every time. The Vioxx situation is a classic example of this inherent conflict. American consumers demand and deserve assurances that the medicines in their cabinets are safe. The risks associated with a drug should be outweighed by its benefits, and this risk-benefit analysis should not be negotiated by the industry behind closed doors. Unfortunately, reforms at the FDA are necessary to place drug safety front and center once and for all.

When drugs go on the market, they are used by exponentially larger numbers of people than were involved in the pre-approval trials. What John Q. Public deserves and demands is for the FDA to embrace a renewed mission to pursue aggressively key safety questions that the industry would sometimes prefer to ignore. The FDA must protect the health of the public by considering not only the benefits but also the risks of drugs for the tens of millions of Americans who actually use new drugs already available in the marketplace. The FDA's post-market evaluation and research needs to be a separate but equal partner with pre-approval evaluation. Indeed FDA's post marketing surveillance function can no longer take a back seat within the agency.

I have been pressing for necessary reforms at the FDA--both administrative and legislative--and the focus of these reforms center on a reorganization of the FDA. The Food and Drug Administration Safety Act of 2005 will establish an independent Center within the FDA--the Center for Post-market Drug Evaluation and Research (CPDER). The new Center's primary mission, vision and values will focus on conducting risk assessment for approved drugs and biological products once they are on the market. The Director of the Center will report directly to the FDA Commissioner and will be responsible for monitoring and assessing the safety and efficacy of drugs and biological products.

Today's legislation is focused on the equal importance of pre- marketing evaluations by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)--the pre-market Center--and post-marketing evaluations by the newly established post-market Center. Consultation and coordination between pre-market and post-market Centers will be essential, but their relationship will place them on equal footing with the other. The present Office of Drug Safety will no longer be effectively under the thumb of the Office of New Drugs. We are hopeful that this reorganization of the FDA will go a long way toward eliminating the conflict of interest that shadows the FDA's post-market risk assessment presently.

Today's legislation will also: authorize the Director to require manufacturers to conduct post-market clinical or observational studies if there are questions about the safety or efficacy of a drug or biological product.

Authorize the Director to determine whether an approved drug or licensed biological product may present an unreasonable risk to the health of patients or the general public, given the known benefits.

Authorize the Director to take corrective action if a drug or biological product presents an unreasonable risk to patients or the general public--including the authority to make changes to the label or approved indication, place restrictions on product distribution, require physician and consumer education, and require the use of other risk management tools.

Allow the Director to withdraw approval of a drug or biological product if necessary to protect the public health.

Require submission of advertising prior to dissemination, and certain advertising disclosures related to risks and benefits to patients, if one or more

of the three following conditions is met: the Director has determined that the product may present an unreasonable risk to patients, the product is the subject of an outstanding post-market study requirement, or the product was approved within the last two years.

Establish strong enforcement mechanisms, including civil monetary penalties, for those who fail to comply.

Ensure that the Director benefits from all appropriate resources, including but not limited to consultation with the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) or the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), and makes all decisions based on a risk-benefit analysis.

Ensure that all findings and decisions made by CPDER are transparent.

Require a report and recommendations to Congress on post-market surveillance of medical devices.

Authorize graduated appropriations totaling $500 million over five years to ensure that CPDER has the resources to accomplish its goals.

Today's legislation is another important step toward reforming the FDA. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort by cosponsoring this important legislation.