Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today with great pride to express my support for the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Today, the Senate is on the verge of a historic decision in confirming Judge Sotomayor. She brings a wealth of experience to this lifetime appointment, with 17 years of service on the judicial bench--more than any member of the current court. She has served as a prosecutor, a trial judge, an appellate judge and has also worked as an attorney in the private sector.

In fact, with the retirement of Justice David Souter and the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor, she will become the only justice on the current Supreme Court with experience as a trial judge. This experience gives her a perspective that will be a much-needed addition to the Court.

If we confirm her today--and I am confident we will--Judge Sotomayor will become the nation's first Hispanic in history to sit on the highest court in the land, and only the third female Justice. Women, Latinos and Latinas--indeed all Americans--can join in celebrating these significant milestones. Judge Sotomayor embodies the progress our country has achieved, and yet I know she would agree with me that there is much more to be done.

According to the American Bar Association, women comprise 47 percent of all law students, as compared to 1947, when women made up 3 percent of law students. That is significant progress. I firmly believe that for Hispanics, Judge Sotomayor's appointment will mark the beginning of a new era of steady progress. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, today only about 4 percent of lawyers and 3 percent of judges are of Hispanic descent.

Judge Sotomayor will serve as an able Associate Justice. She will also serve as a tremendous role model for law students and other young people thinking about entering the legal profession and for those who aspire to become judges. Her confirmation and service on the U.S. Supreme Court will serve to accelerate progress into the future.

Like election of the president who appointed her, Judge Sotomayor's confirmation says to young people of all incomes and backgrounds: You can be anything you want to be.

All of us have been moved by Judge Sotomayor's personal story--of her upbringing in the Bronx by a working mother, and her rise from those humble beginnings to graduate in one of Princeton University's first classes to include women. From there she went on to Yale Law School, where she excelled, and then to a coveted post--one of the few held by women--in the Office of the Manhattan District Attorney.

With her record of solid experience, clearly Judge Sotomayor is ready to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. In rating Judge Sotomayor, the American Bar Association conducted confidential interviews with a large number of judges and litigants who have worked with her or argued cases in her court. The ABA unanimously found Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be ``well qualified,'' the highest rating the association can give a judicial nominee.

Judge Sotomayor has received support from Democrats and Republicans, law enforcement groups and civil rights organizations. Among these groups are the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, International Association of Chiefs of Police, National Fraternal Order of Police, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Women's Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the NAACP.

I agree with the Hispanic National Bar Association, which said that Judge Sotomayor ``embodies all the qualities required for service as a Justice and are confident that, when confirmed, she will render fair and impartial justice for all Americans.''

The National Association of Women Lawyers has noted that Judge Sotomayor's record, ``establishes her lack of gender, racial, ethnic or religious bias and her willingness to maintain and open mind, deciding cases on the record before her.''

Throughout her 17 years on the bench, Judge Sotomayor has shown a respect for established precedent and deference to the role of the elected branches of government. She made this point clear in the meeting I had with her shortly after President Obama nominated her for the post. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, CRS, stated that ``perhaps the most consistent characteristic of Judge Sotomayor's approach as an appellate judge has been an adherence to'' existing judicial precedent.

In her meeting with me and in testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Sotomayor repeatedly acknowledged the right to privacy is enshrined in our Constitution. I believe she will preserve that right.

President Obama made a wise choice in selecting Judge Sotomayor to serve on our highest court. She has demonstrated her integrity and intellect throughout the thorough confirmation process. Having followed her confirmation hearings closely, I am confident that Judge Sotomayor not only has a deep understanding of the law and great respect for precedent. I am confident she will make a fine associate justice.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Grassley, and introduce an important piece of legislation that will modernize the tax incentive for domestic biodiesel production. The Biodiesel Tax Incentive Reform and Extension Act of 2009 will provide predictability to investors, to producers, and to researchers so we can move forward and continue to displace imported fossil fuels with low carbon, renewable biodiesel that is produced here in the United States.

Last year, we all saw the devastating effects that $140 per barrel oil had on our economy and our constituents. For economic reasons, national security reasons, and environmental reasons, we cannot allow ourselves to remain dependent on foreign oil. We have to redouble our efforts to deploy alternative fuels that can be produced in the United States and that can help us address the growing crisis of climate change.

Biodiesel is a diesel replacement fuel that is produced from vegetable oils, animal fats and waste oils. It is refined to meet a commercial fuel specification that is readily accepted in the marketplace. Typically biodiesel is blended with conventional diesel fuel, and it is not necessary to modify a vehicle's engine to use the fuel.

There are compelling public policy benefits associated with the production and use of biodiesel. It is an extremely efficient fuel that can be produced domestically so we do not have to rely on imported fuel. Biodiesel creates 3.2 units of energy for every unit of fuel that is required to produce the fuel and the 690 million gallons of biodiesel produced in the U.S. in 2008 displaced 38.1 million barrels of petroleum.

Replacing fossil fuel use with biodiesel also can play a constructive role in addressing the issue of climate change. When compared to conventional diesel fuel, pure biodiesel reduces direct carbon lifecycle emissions by 78 percent, which in 2008 was the equivalent of removing 980,000 passenger vehicles from the road.

Congress first enacted a tax incentive for biodiesel in 2004 and since that time, this tax credit has helped encourage the production and use of this alternative fuel. U.S. production of biodiesel increased from 25 million gallons in 2004 to 690 million gallons last year, and the industry has built the commercial scale production capacity. There currently are 176 plants in operation with the capacity to produce more than 2.61 billion gallons of biodiesel.

The 39 new plants that are either under construction or being expanded would add nearly 849.9 million gallons of production capacity. We have to be sure these plans for expansion go forward. Unfortunately, limited access to capital, uncertainty surrounding the Federal commitment to biodiesel, and the current state of the economy threaten to undermine the progress the U.S. biodiesel industry has made to build the production capacity and infrastructure needed to aggressively displace petroleum diesel fuel with renewable, low-carbon biodiesel. Right now, less than one-third of the industry's facilities are currently producing fuel.

The 51,893 jobs that are currently supported by the U.S. biodiesel industry show there is real job growth potential in this industry. Much of that job growth and economic activity will happen in our rural communities who continue to be hard hit right now.

The current law tax credit will expire at the end of this year and Congress must act or we will threaten the future of this promising domestic industry. The National Biodiesel Board estimates that if Congress does not provide some predictability to the industry, U.S. production will likely fall from 690 million gallons in 2008 to 300-350 million gallons in 2009. This could cost the U.S. economy more than 29,000 jobs. These are not jobs we can afford to lose.

In addition to the looming expiration, the current structure of the tax credit has administrative problems and is subject to abuse that makes it difficult to ensure that that only qualified fuel benefits from the incentive. We owe it to taxpayers to make sure that we are getting the results we want from the tax incentives we enact so in addition to extending the tax credit we need to make the structural changes that Sen. Grassley and I are proposing today.

The centerpiece of the bill is changing the incentive from a blender credit to a production tax credit so that we focus the benefits of the incentive on building the domestic production industry. Under current law, the credit was targeted at the blending of biodiesel with petroleum diesel. While this was helpful in getting us to the point we are now, it is time we move even farther in the direction of promoting the production of petroleum fuel alternatives.

In addition, the legislation we are introducing today will simplify administration of the incentive for both taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, and will eliminate any remaining opportunity for abuse of the tax credit through schemes like ``splash and dash'' in which oil companies add a few drops of biodiesel to their petroleum diesel just to qualify for the tax credits.

Under our bill, the $1 per gallon tax credit will be provided for the production of biodiesel, renewable diesel and aviation jet fuel that complies with established fuel standards and Clean Air Act requirements.

For small producers, those with an annual production capacity of less than 60 million gallons, we increase the $1 to $1.10 for the first 15 million gallons of biodiesel produced.

We simplify the definition of biodiesel so that we encourage production

from any biomass-based feedstock or recycled oils and fats. Hopefully this will unleash even more research and commercialization of alternative fuel sources.

The bill also simplifies the coordination between the income tax credit and the excise tax liability to, again, tighten up compliance and reduce administrative burdens on taxpayers. Most importantly, our bill would extend this tax credit for 5 years, giving needed financial predictability to the industry.

I thank Senator Grassley for joining with me on this bill and look forward to working with our colleagues on the Finance Committee to adopt this worthwhile, commonsense proposal that is consistent with sound energy and sound tax policy.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Longline Catcher Processor Subsector Single Cooperative Act.

In Washington State, our history is based on a rich maritime tradition that contributes billions of dollars to the state's economy each year. There are 3,000 vessels in Washington's fishing fleet that employ 10,000 fishermen. Seafood processors employ another 3,800 Washingtonians. And fish wholesalers employ an additional 1,000 people.

For many communities along this nation's coastlines, the economy literally ebbs and flows with the tide. It is important to remember that the ocean resources these communities depend on are a public trust and a resource to be both treasured and protected.

As guardians of the ocean and its plentiful resources, it is necessary that we examine all issues of ``ownership'' with care, transparency, and fairness. The issue of fishery cooperatives has proved to be an issue that demands nothing less.

In July of 2008, I chaired a hearing in the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard, examining the impact of fishery management regimes on fishing safety and conservation. Following that hearing and numerous meetings with stakeholders to discuss the policy, safety, economic, and environmental implications of fishing cooperatives, I am here today to introduce the Longline Catcher Processor Subsector Single Cooperative Act, legislation that would allow for the formation of a single fishing cooperative in the Pacific cod catcher processor fleet.

Instead of fishermen racing against each other and the elements to catch as much as they can, this bill would allow the fishermen to bring some sanity back to their livelihoods. Under this legislation, the Pacific cod catcher processor fishery can allocate the catch among their members, putting an end to the very dangerous ``race for fish.''

The cooperative would empower commercial fishermen with the framework and incentives to police themselves while still preserving the crucial regulatory and oversight responsibilities of the federal government and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.

By adopting this bill, we can improve fishing safety in the Pacific cod catcher processor fishery by putting an end to the ``race for fish.'' Doing so would lessen the fishery's environmental footprint, and give these fishermen the financial certainty that has worked for others across this Nation.

Fishing safety is a real concern that must be addressed at the federal level. In 2006, the Coast Guard reported that in the decade from 1994 to 2004, 1,398 fishing vessels were lost tragic--reminders of what can go wrong at sea.

Most of these fishing-related fatalities occur in the North Pacific, where the fishermen from my home state of Washington make their living. The difficult waters equate to the highest casualty rates in the nation, and highest rates of fatality and injury among fisherman.

But the North Pacific's rough waters are not the only factor these fishermen have to cope with.

It is a tough business--tough for those who work the boats and those who make the business-end decisions. It's a business that is driven by incentives and dangerous conditions that work in tandem to place countless numbers of fishermen at risk.

When things go wrong, it is usually because of failures at multiple levels. You see, it's not always about vessels. Nor is it all about inspections, safety equipment, or training. Fishing safety is closely related to how fisheries are managed and the very foundation fishing has come to be built upon: competition.

Without legislation such as this, the fisheries will continue to operate on a foundation of destructive competition, or a ``race for fish.'' And this race for fish is a very dangerous race.

According to Lieutenant Christopher Woodley, the former fishing Vessel Safety Coordinator of the 13th U.S. Coast Guard District based in Seattle:

This race encourages fishermen to operate in all weather

and sea conditions, to operate without rest, and encourages

risk-taking behaviors.

But we can change that.

By instituting a cooperative style of fishery management through this legislation, we dramatically change the incentives. And by changing the incentives to put a new premium on safety, we can change the way people fish and hopefully prevent future tragedies at sea.

Safety is not the only goal of this legislation. This legislation aims to make environmental and economic improvements to the process of fishing.

By eliminating the ``race for fish,'' as I mentioned before, we effectively slow the pace of fishing meaning commercial fishermen can optimize onboard processing facilities. The result is an increase in the product recovery rate per pound of fish caught, meaning they can use more parts of the fish and make wiser and more efficient use of our precious ocean resources. A slower pace also decreases bycatch and promotes ownership of the fishery, which will facilitate a conservation mindset in the fishermen.

We have once again shifted the incentive from reckless speed to doing things slower, better, smarter, and more environmentally conscious.

Furthermore, the Longline Catcher Processor Subsector Fisheries Cooperative Act means greater job stability for the Pacific cod freezer longliner fleet's workers.

When fishermen no longer race, the fishing season lasts longer. This means more stability and predictability for crew members, and eliminates the boom and bust cycle that often prevails today.

I want to be clear that this bill is not yet a finished product. I welcome comments, suggestions, and criticisms to help make this bill good public policy for everyone involved.

As we discuss issues like safety of our fisherman and environmental implications to our oceans, it's imperative that we commit to an open and transparent process that shines the light of accountability.

Both in fisheries management, fishing safety, and those areas where the two intersect, transparency must be the rule.

We owe it to our coastal communities, our fisherman, and the American public collectively as stewards of one of our greatest public resources--our oceans.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues Senators Vitter, Landrieu, Murray, and Martinez and introduce the American Shipping Reinvestment Act of 2009. This legislation will build on work Congress started in 2004 to strengthen the U.S. merchant marine, create needed jobs in U.S. ship building, and stimulate economic activity in our maritime sector.

Since our Nation's founding, the maritime sector has been integral to U.S. national security and economic

security. American companies own and operate both U.S. flag ships and a significant number of vessels under international registries. The U.S. flag fleets of these companies generally are built in the United States and are manned with U.S. seafarers. These U.S. flag fleets support not only the shipbuilding industrial base in this country and the pool of qualified seafarers, but they also create the shipping assets that are needed for military sealift in time of war or national emergency.

Most people understand commercial shipping and understand that we maintain a fleet of ships for military purposes. What may not be as well known is that the international ships of some American-owned companies are part of what is called the effective U.S.-controlled fleet, EUSC fleet. The EUSC is the fleet of merchant vessels registered in certain foreign nations that are available for requisition, use, or charter by the U.S. Government in the event of war or national emergency.

For example, U.S. flag commercial vessels and their American crews transported the majority of the cargo--more than 25 million measurement tons of cargo--in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom during the period of 2002-2008.

What people also may not know is that the EUSC fleet has been in decline for the past quarter century, largely because of U.S. tax policy. Following enactment of certain 1986 tax law changes, there was a precipitous decline in American-owned international shipping. To remain competitive, many American-owned shipping companies either became foreign companies or simply divested themselves of their foreign assets.

A 2002 study commissioned by the Department of Defense and performed by professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that the EUSC fleet dropped by 38 percent in terms of numbers of ships and nearly 55 percent in terms of deadweight tonnage between 1986 and 2000. Perhaps more importantly, these declines have been largely experienced in militarily-useful vessel types. For example, the results of a 2002 DOD study found that if the EUSC fleet continues its present decline, DOD's ability to support U.S. military tanker requirements will diminish over time.

Fortunately, Congress recognized this problem in 2004 and addressed it by enacting the tonnage tax regime as part of the American Jobs Creation Act. Our legislation today builds on that policy by correcting an oversight in the 2004 act that has continued to stymie the ability of U.S. shipbuilding companies to invest in new ships in the United States.

We have very strong economic and national security reasons to support U.S. owned shipowning companies and to maintain a vibrant maritime industry in this country. We also have to continue to support needed changes in our tax code so that we provide operators of U.S. flag vessels in international trade the opportunity to be competitive with their tax-advantaged foreign competitors.

Notwithstanding the significant competitive disadvantages between 1986 and 2004 for American companies operating international ships, there continues to be several U.S. owned shipping companies with foreign operations, and our legislation is directed as helping them sustain and grow their U.S. flag fleets and to maintain their EUSC fleets. This bill will help these companies make needed investment in the U.S. economy, and create jobs in a way that also will enhance national security.

Specifically, The American Shipping Reinvestment Act of 2009 would repeal an outdated section of the Internal Revenue Code and allow U.S. shipping companies with foreign income earned prior to 1986 to reinvest it into the U.S. for the purpose of growing their U.S. flag operations.

Congress first included foreign shipping income in Subpart F in 1975, which meant that all shipping income was taxable at the full U.S. corporate tax rate no matter whether it was invested abroad or in the United States. However, a temporary rule, applicable to foreign shipping income earned from 1975 to 1986, continued to allow for deferral in cases where this income was reinvested in qualifying shipping activities. Section 955 of the Internal Revenue Code provided that this income would be included in gross income, i.e., taxed, immediately under Subpart F in the event of any net decrease in qualified shipping investments.

The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 restored for shipping income the normal tax rule under which non-Subpart F income of foreign subsidiaries is not taxed by the United States until it is repatriated, generally as a dividend. In restoring the potential for deferral for certain shipping income, Congress in 2004 returned the treatment of shipping income to where it was prior to 1975.

Unfortunately, Congress did not address the rules under IRC Section 955 that apply to income earned between 1975 and 1986, thus creating a situation that this income is permanently stranded offshore. Our bill would repeal IRC Section 955 and will allow these stranded assets to be reinvested in the United States under the favorable tax terms that were in effect for other companies and industries in 2004. Specifically, the legislation provides a one-time opportunity for American-owned shipping companies to bring foreign source income back into the United States at a discounted tax rate for the purpose of expanding and growing our domestic maritime industry. Without the commonsense change in our legislation, these old, stranded assets will never return to the United States and never be subject to U.S. taxation.

The bill is guaranteed to create jobs for American workers with the funds being brought back into the U.S. economy--on the ships, in the shipyards building the ships, and in supporting businesses. The bill contains a provision that would recapture any tax benefits if a shipping company reduces its full-time U.S. employment levels.

This bill also would enhance U.S. national security interests by supporting shipyards that are vital to our defense industrial base, by enabling new U.S. flag tanker capacity to transport our Nation's energy products, and by providing DOD with critical assets--manpower and ships--necessary to help sustain military sealift.

The bill is strongly supported by maritime labor, shipyards, and ship owners and operators and can provide a boost to the U.S. maritime industry at a time when the U.S. is struggling to find its economic footing. The jobs created by this legislation are well-paying, long- term jobs in a crucial sector of our Nation's economy. I urge my colleagues to join me and my other original cosponsors in supporting this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the U.S.-China Market Engagement and Export Promotion Act of 2009. For many small- and medium-sized businesses across this country, some of which are in my home State of Washington, getting access to the Chinese market proves difficult at best. However, to establish a foothold in the ever expanding Chinese market can prove pivotal in achieving financial success. China is a tremendous market for U.S. goods and services. According to the U.S.-China Business Council, despite the global economic downturn, 85 percent of congressional districts increased their exports to China in 2008. In addition, exports to China in almost every congressional district grew more than exports to anywhere else from 2000 to 2008.

In 2008, U.S. total exports to China equaled $71.5 billion. During the same time, however, our imports from China equaled $337.8 billion. That means our trading balance with China in 2008 was a $266.3 billion deficit. This bill would help States establish export promotion offices in China and create a new China Market Advocate Program at U.S. Export Assistance Centers around the Nation. The bill also provides assistance to small businesses for China trade missions and authorizes grants for Chinese business education programs.

I support this bill because of the enormous role that small businesses play in our economy. Small- and medium-sized businesses are a great potential engine of growth. Between 2004 and 2005, small businesses created 78.9 percent of the Nation's net new jobs, and with expanded export opportunities that number will be able to increase in the near future. Considering the huge impact that small- and medium- sized businesses have on our economy, I urge all my colleagues to support this bill and give the business owners the assistance they need to succeed in the Chinese export market.

The U.S.-China Market Engagement and Promotion Act will build the infrastructure necessary to connect American small- and medium-sized businesses with export opportunities in China.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Asia- Pacific Economic Cooperation, APEC, Business Travel Cards Act of 2009. This bill would authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security and State Department to issue APEC Business Travel Cards, ABTC's, to business leaders from APEC countries and senior government officials who are actively engaged in APEC business.

The ABTC program has 18 nations participating, including China, Japan and Australia, which are among the world's larger economies. The United States currently recognizes foreign issued ABTC travel cards. Cardholders from non-Visa Waiver Program countries need to present valid passports and those from other countries must still obtain U.S. visas as required by United States law. However, ABTC card holders are allowed to benefit from expedited visa interview scheduling at U.S. embassies and consulates, and expedited immigration processing through airline crew and diplomat immigration lanes upon arrival at U.S. international airports. However, under current law U.S. passport holders are not yet eligible to apply for the ABTC program and therefore do not enjoy these same benefits in Asia-Pacific countries. This bill would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue ABTCs to United States citizen business leaders and senior government officials actively engaged in APEC business no later than January 1, 2010.

I support the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Business Travel Cards Act because I have long supported increased free trade with the Asia- Pacific region. International business travel is an essential part of selling goods and services around the world. The 21 member economies of APEC together account for around 53 percent of world GDP and approximately 48 percent of global trade. This bill would help facilitate international cooperation and trade by allowing business leaders within the participating countries to enter countries on an expedited basis for the length of the program, currently three years.

The success of the program has been shown by the amount of applications for travel cards since inception of the program in 1997. From 1997, applications received by participating countries have grown by more than 100 percent each year. By March of last year, there were more than 34,000 cards being used by APEC countries. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Business Travel Cards Act of 2009 will help facilitate global trade within the Asia-Pacific, and create expanded export opportunities for U.S. businesses. Working to grow U.S. exports will get our economy to grow again and create and maintain U.S. jobs.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Grassley, and introduce an important piece of legislation that will modernize the tax incentive for domestic biodiesel production. The Biodiesel Tax Incentive Reform and Extension Act of 2009 will provide predictability to investors, to producers, and to researchers so we can move forward and continue to displace imported fossil fuels with low carbon, renewable biodiesel that is produced here in the United States.

Last year, we all saw the devastating effects that $140 per barrel oil had on our economy and our constituents. For economic reasons, national security reasons, and environmental reasons, we cannot allow ourselves to remain dependent on foreign oil. We have to redouble our efforts to deploy alternative fuels that can be produced in the United States and that can help us address the growing crisis of climate change.

Biodiesel is a diesel replacement fuel that is produced from vegetable oils, animal fats and waste oils. It is refined to meet a commercial fuel specification that is readily accepted in the marketplace. Typically biodiesel is blended with conventional diesel fuel, and it is not necessary to modify a vehicle's engine to use the fuel.

There are compelling public policy benefits associated with the production and use of biodiesel. It is an extremely efficient fuel that can be produced domestically so we do not have to rely on imported fuel. Biodiesel creates 3.2 units of energy for every unit of fuel that is required to produce the fuel and the 690 million gallons of biodiesel produced in the U.S. in 2008 displaced 38.1 million barrels of petroleum.

Replacing fossil fuel use with biodiesel also can play a constructive role in addressing the issue of climate change. When compared to conventional diesel fuel, pure biodiesel reduces direct carbon lifecycle emissions by 78 percent, which in 2008 was the equivalent of removing 980,000 passenger vehicles from the road.

Congress first enacted a tax incentive for biodiesel in 2004 and since that time, this tax credit has helped encourage the production and use of this alternative fuel. U.S. production of biodiesel increased from 25 million gallons in 2004 to 690 million gallons last year, and the industry has built the commercial scale production capacity. There currently are 176 plants in operation with the capacity to produce more than 2.61 billion gallons of biodiesel.

The 39 new plants that are either under construction or being expanded would add nearly 849.9 million gallons of production capacity. We have to be sure these plans for expansion go forward. Unfortunately, limited access to capital, uncertainty surrounding the Federal commitment to biodiesel, and the current state of the economy threaten to undermine the progress the U.S. biodiesel industry has made to build the production capacity and infrastructure needed to aggressively displace petroleum diesel fuel with renewable, low-carbon biodiesel. Right now, less than one-third of the industry's facilities are currently producing fuel.

The 51,893 jobs that are currently supported by the U.S. biodiesel industry show there is real job growth potential in this industry. Much of that job growth and economic activity will happen in our rural communities who continue to be hard hit right now.

The current law tax credit will expire at the end of this year and Congress must act or we will threaten the future of this promising domestic industry. The National Biodiesel Board estimates that if Congress does not provide some predictability to the industry, U.S. production will likely fall from 690 million gallons in 2008 to 300-350 million gallons in 2009. This could cost the U.S. economy more than 29,000 jobs. These are not jobs we can afford to lose.

In addition to the looming expiration, the current structure of the tax credit has administrative problems and is subject to abuse that makes it difficult to ensure that that only qualified fuel benefits from the incentive. We owe it to taxpayers to make sure that we are getting the results we want from the tax incentives we enact so in addition to extending the tax credit we need to make the structural changes that Sen. Grassley and I are proposing today.

The centerpiece of the bill is changing the incentive from a blender credit to a production tax credit so that we focus the benefits of the incentive on building the domestic production industry. Under current law, the credit was targeted at the blending of biodiesel with petroleum diesel. While this was helpful in getting us to the point we are now, it is time we move even farther in the direction of promoting the production of petroleum fuel alternatives.

In addition, the legislation we are introducing today will simplify administration of the incentive for both taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, and will eliminate any remaining opportunity for abuse of the tax credit through schemes like ``splash and dash'' in which oil companies add a few drops of biodiesel to their petroleum diesel just to qualify for the tax credits.

Under our bill, the $1 per gallon tax credit will be provided for the production of biodiesel, renewable diesel and aviation jet fuel that complies with established fuel standards and Clean Air Act requirements.

For small producers, those with an annual production capacity of less than 60 million gallons, we increase the $1 to $1.10 for the first 15 million gallons of biodiesel produced.

We simplify the definition of biodiesel so that we encourage production

from any biomass-based feedstock or recycled oils and fats. Hopefully this will unleash even more research and commercialization of alternative fuel sources.

The bill also simplifies the coordination between the income tax credit and the excise tax liability to, again, tighten up compliance and reduce administrative burdens on taxpayers. Most importantly, our bill would extend this tax credit for 5 years, giving needed financial predictability to the industry.

I thank Senator Grassley for joining with me on this bill and look forward to working with our colleagues on the Finance Committee to adopt this worthwhile, commonsense proposal that is consistent with sound energy and sound tax policy.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Longline Catcher Processor Subsector Single Cooperative Act.

In Washington State, our history is based on a rich maritime tradition that contributes billions of dollars to the state's economy each year. There are 3,000 vessels in Washington's fishing fleet that employ 10,000 fishermen. Seafood processors employ another 3,800 Washingtonians. And fish wholesalers employ an additional 1,000 people.

For many communities along this nation's coastlines, the economy literally ebbs and flows with the tide. It is important to remember that the ocean resources these communities depend on are a public trust and a resource to be both treasured and protected.

As guardians of the ocean and its plentiful resources, it is necessary that we examine all issues of ``ownership'' with care, transparency, and fairness. The issue of fishery cooperatives has proved to be an issue that demands nothing less.

In July of 2008, I chaired a hearing in the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard, examining the impact of fishery management regimes on fishing safety and conservation. Following that hearing and numerous meetings with stakeholders to discuss the policy, safety, economic, and environmental implications of fishing cooperatives, I am here today to introduce the Longline Catcher Processor Subsector Single Cooperative Act, legislation that would allow for the formation of a single fishing cooperative in the Pacific cod catcher processor fleet.

Instead of fishermen racing against each other and the elements to catch as much as they can, this bill would allow the fishermen to bring some sanity back to their livelihoods. Under this legislation, the Pacific cod catcher processor fishery can allocate the catch among their members, putting an end to the very dangerous ``race for fish.''

The cooperative would empower commercial fishermen with the framework and incentives to police themselves while still preserving the crucial regulatory and oversight responsibilities of the federal government and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.

By adopting this bill, we can improve fishing safety in the Pacific cod catcher processor fishery by putting an end to the ``race for fish.'' Doing so would lessen the fishery's environmental footprint, and give these fishermen the financial certainty that has worked for others across this Nation.

Fishing safety is a real concern that must be addressed at the federal level. In 2006, the Coast Guard reported that in the decade from 1994 to 2004, 1,398 fishing vessels were lost tragic--reminders of what can go wrong at sea.

Most of these fishing-related fatalities occur in the North Pacific, where the fishermen from my home state of Washington make their living. The difficult waters equate to the highest casualty rates in the nation, and highest rates of fatality and injury among fisherman.

But the North Pacific's rough waters are not the only factor these fishermen have to cope with.

It is a tough business--tough for those who work the boats and those who make the business-end decisions. It's a business that is driven by incentives and dangerous conditions that work in tandem to place countless numbers of fishermen at risk.

When things go wrong, it is usually because of failures at multiple levels. You see, it's not always about vessels. Nor is it all about inspections, safety equipment, or training. Fishing safety is closely related to how fisheries are managed and the very foundation fishing has come to be built upon: competition.

Without legislation such as this, the fisheries will continue to operate on a foundation of destructive competition, or a ``race for fish.'' And this race for fish is a very dangerous race.

According to Lieutenant Christopher Woodley, the former fishing Vessel Safety Coordinator of the 13th U.S. Coast Guard District based in Seattle:

This race encourages fishermen to operate in all weather

and sea conditions, to operate without rest, and encourages

risk-taking behaviors.

But we can change that.

By instituting a cooperative style of fishery management through this legislation, we dramatically change the incentives. And by changing the incentives to put a new premium on safety, we can change the way people fish and hopefully prevent future tragedies at sea.

Safety is not the only goal of this legislation. This legislation aims to make environmental and economic improvements to the process of fishing.

By eliminating the ``race for fish,'' as I mentioned before, we effectively slow the pace of fishing meaning commercial fishermen can optimize onboard processing facilities. The result is an increase in the product recovery rate per pound of fish caught, meaning they can use more parts of the fish and make wiser and more efficient use of our precious ocean resources. A slower pace also decreases bycatch and promotes ownership of the fishery, which will facilitate a conservation mindset in the fishermen.

We have once again shifted the incentive from reckless speed to doing things slower, better, smarter, and more environmentally conscious.

Furthermore, the Longline Catcher Processor Subsector Fisheries Cooperative Act means greater job stability for the Pacific cod freezer longliner fleet's workers.

When fishermen no longer race, the fishing season lasts longer. This means more stability and predictability for crew members, and eliminates the boom and bust cycle that often prevails today.

I want to be clear that this bill is not yet a finished product. I welcome comments, suggestions, and criticisms to help make this bill good public policy for everyone involved.

As we discuss issues like safety of our fisherman and environmental implications to our oceans, it's imperative that we commit to an open and transparent process that shines the light of accountability.

Both in fisheries management, fishing safety, and those areas where the two intersect, transparency must be the rule.

We owe it to our coastal communities, our fisherman, and the American public collectively as stewards of one of our greatest public resources--our oceans.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues Senators Vitter, Landrieu, Murray, and Martinez and introduce the American Shipping Reinvestment Act of 2009. This legislation will build on work Congress started in 2004 to strengthen the U.S. merchant marine, create needed jobs in U.S. ship building, and stimulate economic activity in our maritime sector.

Since our Nation's founding, the maritime sector has been integral to U.S. national security and economic

security. American companies own and operate both U.S. flag ships and a significant number of vessels under international registries. The U.S. flag fleets of these companies generally are built in the United States and are manned with U.S. seafarers. These U.S. flag fleets support not only the shipbuilding industrial base in this country and the pool of qualified seafarers, but they also create the shipping assets that are needed for military sealift in time of war or national emergency.

Most people understand commercial shipping and understand that we maintain a fleet of ships for military purposes. What may not be as well known is that the international ships of some American-owned companies are part of what is called the effective U.S.-controlled fleet, EUSC fleet. The EUSC is the fleet of merchant vessels registered in certain foreign nations that are available for requisition, use, or charter by the U.S. Government in the event of war or national emergency.

For example, U.S. flag commercial vessels and their American crews transported the majority of the cargo--more than 25 million measurement tons of cargo--in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom during the period of 2002-2008.

What people also may not know is that the EUSC fleet has been in decline for the past quarter century, largely because of U.S. tax policy. Following enactment of certain 1986 tax law changes, there was a precipitous decline in American-owned international shipping. To remain competitive, many American-owned shipping companies either became foreign companies or simply divested themselves of their foreign assets.

A 2002 study commissioned by the Department of Defense and performed by professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that the EUSC fleet dropped by 38 percent in terms of numbers of ships and nearly 55 percent in terms of deadweight tonnage between 1986 and 2000. Perhaps more importantly, these declines have been largely experienced in militarily-useful vessel types. For example, the results of a 2002 DOD study found that if the EUSC fleet continues its present decline, DOD's ability to support U.S. military tanker requirements will diminish over time.

Fortunately, Congress recognized this problem in 2004 and addressed it by enacting the tonnage tax regime as part of the American Jobs Creation Act. Our legislation today builds on that policy by correcting an oversight in the 2004 act that has continued to stymie the ability of U.S. shipbuilding companies to invest in new ships in the United States.

We have very strong economic and national security reasons to support U.S. owned shipowning companies and to maintain a vibrant maritime industry in this country. We also have to continue to support needed changes in our tax code so that we provide operators of U.S. flag vessels in international trade the opportunity to be competitive with their tax-advantaged foreign competitors.

Notwithstanding the significant competitive disadvantages between 1986 and 2004 for American companies operating international ships, there continues to be several U.S. owned shipping companies with foreign operations, and our legislation is directed as helping them sustain and grow their U.S. flag fleets and to maintain their EUSC fleets. This bill will help these companies make needed investment in the U.S. economy, and create jobs in a way that also will enhance national security.

Specifically, The American Shipping Reinvestment Act of 2009 would repeal an outdated section of the Internal Revenue Code and allow U.S. shipping companies with foreign income earned prior to 1986 to reinvest it into the U.S. for the purpose of growing their U.S. flag operations.

Congress first included foreign shipping income in Subpart F in 1975, which meant that all shipping income was taxable at the full U.S. corporate tax rate no matter whether it was invested abroad or in the United States. However, a temporary rule, applicable to foreign shipping income earned from 1975 to 1986, continued to allow for deferral in cases where this income was reinvested in qualifying shipping activities. Section 955 of the Internal Revenue Code provided that this income would be included in gross income, i.e., taxed, immediately under Subpart F in the event of any net decrease in qualified shipping investments.

The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 restored for shipping income the normal tax rule under which non-Subpart F income of foreign subsidiaries is not taxed by the United States until it is repatriated, generally as a dividend. In restoring the potential for deferral for certain shipping income, Congress in 2004 returned the treatment of shipping income to where it was prior to 1975.

Unfortunately, Congress did not address the rules under IRC Section 955 that apply to income earned between 1975 and 1986, thus creating a situation that this income is permanently stranded offshore. Our bill would repeal IRC Section 955 and will allow these stranded assets to be reinvested in the United States under the favorable tax terms that were in effect for other companies and industries in 2004. Specifically, the legislation provides a one-time opportunity for American-owned shipping companies to bring foreign source income back into the United States at a discounted tax rate for the purpose of expanding and growing our domestic maritime industry. Without the commonsense change in our legislation, these old, stranded assets will never return to the United States and never be subject to U.S. taxation.

The bill is guaranteed to create jobs for American workers with the funds being brought back into the U.S. economy--on the ships, in the shipyards building the ships, and in supporting businesses. The bill contains a provision that would recapture any tax benefits if a shipping company reduces its full-time U.S. employment levels.

This bill also would enhance U.S. national security interests by supporting shipyards that are vital to our defense industrial base, by enabling new U.S. flag tanker capacity to transport our Nation's energy products, and by providing DOD with critical assets--manpower and ships--necessary to help sustain military sealift.

The bill is strongly supported by maritime labor, shipyards, and ship owners and operators and can provide a boost to the U.S. maritime industry at a time when the U.S. is struggling to find its economic footing. The jobs created by this legislation are well-paying, long- term jobs in a crucial sector of our Nation's economy. I urge my colleagues to join me and my other original cosponsors in supporting this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the U.S.-China Market Engagement and Export Promotion Act of 2009. For many small- and medium-sized businesses across this country, some of which are in my home State of Washington, getting access to the Chinese market proves difficult at best. However, to establish a foothold in the ever expanding Chinese market can prove pivotal in achieving financial success. China is a tremendous market for U.S. goods and services. According to the U.S.-China Business Council, despite the global economic downturn, 85 percent of congressional districts increased their exports to China in 2008. In addition, exports to China in almost every congressional district grew more than exports to anywhere else from 2000 to 2008.

In 2008, U.S. total exports to China equaled $71.5 billion. During the same time, however, our imports from China equaled $337.8 billion. That means our trading balance with China in 2008 was a $266.3 billion deficit. This bill would help States establish export promotion offices in China and create a new China Market Advocate Program at U.S. Export Assistance Centers around the Nation. The bill also provides assistance to small businesses for China trade missions and authorizes grants for Chinese business education programs.

I support this bill because of the enormous role that small businesses play in our economy. Small- and medium-sized businesses are a great potential engine of growth. Between 2004 and 2005, small businesses created 78.9 percent of the Nation's net new jobs, and with expanded export opportunities that number will be able to increase in the near future. Considering the huge impact that small- and medium- sized businesses have on our economy, I urge all my colleagues to support this bill and give the business owners the assistance they need to succeed in the Chinese export market.

The U.S.-China Market Engagement and Promotion Act will build the infrastructure necessary to connect American small- and medium-sized businesses with export opportunities in China.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Asia- Pacific Economic Cooperation, APEC, Business Travel Cards Act of 2009. This bill would authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security and State Department to issue APEC Business Travel Cards, ABTC's, to business leaders from APEC countries and senior government officials who are actively engaged in APEC business.

The ABTC program has 18 nations participating, including China, Japan and Australia, which are among the world's larger economies. The United States currently recognizes foreign issued ABTC travel cards. Cardholders from non-Visa Waiver Program countries need to present valid passports and those from other countries must still obtain U.S. visas as required by United States law. However, ABTC card holders are allowed to benefit from expedited visa interview scheduling at U.S. embassies and consulates, and expedited immigration processing through airline crew and diplomat immigration lanes upon arrival at U.S. international airports. However, under current law U.S. passport holders are not yet eligible to apply for the ABTC program and therefore do not enjoy these same benefits in Asia-Pacific countries. This bill would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue ABTCs to United States citizen business leaders and senior government officials actively engaged in APEC business no later than January 1, 2010.

I support the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Business Travel Cards Act because I have long supported increased free trade with the Asia- Pacific region. International business travel is an essential part of selling goods and services around the world. The 21 member economies of APEC together account for around 53 percent of world GDP and approximately 48 percent of global trade. This bill would help facilitate international cooperation and trade by allowing business leaders within the participating countries to enter countries on an expedited basis for the length of the program, currently three years.

The success of the program has been shown by the amount of applications for travel cards since inception of the program in 1997. From 1997, applications received by participating countries have grown by more than 100 percent each year. By March of last year, there were more than 34,000 cards being used by APEC countries. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Business Travel Cards Act of 2009 will help facilitate global trade within the Asia-Pacific, and create expanded export opportunities for U.S. businesses. Working to grow U.S. exports will get our economy to grow again and create and maintain U.S. jobs.

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

Mr. President, today I honor Mr. Eddie Lee Pepple, varsity basketball coach at Mercer Island High School, in retiring after 52 years of faithful service to our Nation and our youth. His distinguished career has culminated as varsity coach at Mercer Island High School where he has taught basketball for 42 years, leading the team to win 4 Washington State AAA Championships, and inspiring thousands of young students.

Coach Pepple was born in Denver, CO. He graduated from the University of Utah in 1955 with a bachelor of arts

degree, and went on to serve in the Marine Corps from 1956-1957. He was the captain of the Quantico Marine Corps basketball team and Pendleton Marine Corps basketball team, winning a Marine Corps Championship with the Quantico Marines in 1956. He later earned his masters' degree in 1965 at Oregon State University.

He began his coaching career in 1958 as the varsity basketball coach at Fife High School in Washington State, where he led the team to a 4th place finish in the 1961 State Tournament. After 6 years of dedicated service to Fife High School, Coach Pepple went on to be the assistant coach at Meadowdale High School from 1964-1966, and then varsity coach at Mark Morris High School in 1967.

In 1968, Coach Ed Pepple began as varsity coach at Mercer Island High School, where he has led the team to 23 league championship tournaments, 4 final placements as State AAA Champions, and 13 second place finishes in the State championship tournament. His overall winning record during his tenure at Mercer Island High School is 78.8 percent after winning 882 of the 1119 games he has coached.

During these 52 years of devoted public service, Coach Pepple has been recognized by numerous organizations as an outstanding basketball coach and is nationally renowned for his inspiration, dedication, and success. In 1985, after leading Mercer Island High School to his first State AAA championship, Coach Pepple was awarded his first Coach of the Year Award by both the Kingco Conference, and the Washington State Interscholastic Basketball Association. He has since won the Kingco Coach of the year award five more times, and the Washington State Interscholastic Basketball Association award again in 1993.

In 1986, Coach Pepple was nationally celebrated when he received the Region 7 Coach of the Year award from the National High School Athletic Coaches Association, NHSACA. He received this award once again in 1993 and 1998. In 1998 Coach Pepple was also recognized by the NHSACA as the National Coach of the Year, one of the highest national awards a distinguished coach can receive. He has also served as the prestigious West Head Coach of the McDonald's All American Game, and served on the McDonalds All American Game Selection Committee for 17 years.

In 1997 and 1999, the Washington Interscholastic Basketball Coaches Association also recognized Coach Pepple as the AAA Coach of the Year. He has been the chairman of this organization for the past 26 years. In total, Coach Pepple has been awarded 17 Coach of the Year awards and has been inaugurated into the Puget Sound Hall of Fame, the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association Hall of Fame, the Washington Interscholastic Basketball Coaches Association Hall of Fame, and most recently the National High School Athletic Coaches Association Hall of Fame in 2006.

Upon his retirement Coach Pepple will be inaugurated into the Everett Community College Hall of Fame, and honored by the establishment of the Ed Pepple Coaches' Service Award by the Washington Interscholastic Basketball Coaches Association, as recognition of his service to the Washington State basketball community.

It is through the commitment and sacrifice of Americans such as Eddie Lee Pepple that our young adults are able to thrive and succeed. He has bettered our communities in Washington State, and touched the lives of countless students through his dedication to coaching and teaching. I am proud to thank him, his wife Shirley, and children Terry, Jill, Jody, and Kyle for his honorable service to our Nation as a coach. I congratulate Coach Pepple and give my best wishes as he concludes his distinguished career.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will remove an unintended obstacle in the tax-exempt bond rules so that states can use these bonds to finance the purchase of fixed-wing air ambulances in the same way they can now use them to finance the purchase of medical helicopters.

The difference between a medical helicopter and a fixed wing air ambulance

may seem minor to some, but if you live in a remote area the difference can be as big as life or death.

Air medical services, AMS, are an essential component of the health care system. When appropriately used, air critical care transport saves lives and reduces the cost of health care by minimizing the time the critically injured and ill spend out of a hospital, by bringing more medical capabilities to the patient than are normally provided by ground emergency medical services, and by quickly getting the patient to the right specialty care. Dedicated medical helicopters and fixed wing aircraft are mobile flying emergency intensive care units deployed at a moment's notice to patients whose lives depend on rapid care and transport.

In remote rural areas, the use of helicopters often is impractical and unsafe because of the long distances that patients must be transported, sometimes during poor weather conditions. In these situations, the better alternative is a fixed-wing aircraft.

Both helicopters and fixed wing aircraft cost millions of dollars to purchase or lease, operate, house and maintain. But under the way that the tax-exempt bond rules currently work, states are prohibited from using these bonds to finance air ambulance services in rural areas, even though they can use these bonds for helicopters. This result was not what Congress intended, and our bill would make that clear.

Under current law, tax-exempt bonds can not be issued for the purchase of any ``airplane, skybox or other privacy luxury box, health club facility, facility primarily used for gambling, or store the principal business of which is the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off premises.'' The restrictions were enacted in order to prevent tax-exmpt bonds to be used for frivolous or extravagant purposes. Unfortunately, the law has been interpreted to exclude the purchase of new fixed-wing planes to provide air ambulance services, but the purchase of helicopters--which are not airplanes--is permitted.

This result is not what was intended by the restrictions and our bill would simply make it clear that the general restriction against the use of tax-exempt bonds for purchasing an airplane does not apply in the case of planes that are equipped for and exclusively dedicated to emergency medical services.

There is supporting precedent in distinguishing planes for air ambulance services different than other airplanes. The air transportation excise tax provides an exemption for air transportation that is used to provide ``emergency medical services . . . by a fixed- wing aircraft equipped for and exclusively dedicated on that flight to acute care emergency medical services.''

This issue hits close to home for me and my colleagues who are joining me on this legislation, but we are certainly not alone with respect to the need to ensure that folks in our rural and remote areas have access to needed medical services.

Inland Northwest Health Services, INHS, is a non-profit organization that provides critical health care support services in the Inland Northwest, including air ambulance services through Northwest MedStar. INHS is based in Spokane, Washington, and provides health care services in Eastern Washington, Eastern Oregon, Northern Idaho, and Western Montana. Unfortunately, this unintended restriction in the tax code is preventing INHS from asking the appropriate state authorities to issue tax-exempt bonds to finance the purchase of new fixed-wing planes for air ambulance service.

The legislation that I am introducing with Senator Murray is a common-sense fix to this problem, and I hope we can address it quickly.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will remove an unintended obstacle in the tax-exempt bond rules so that states can use these bonds to finance the purchase of fixed-wing air ambulances in the same way they can now use them to finance the purchase of medical helicopters.

The difference between a medical helicopter and a fixed wing air ambulance

may seem minor to some, but if you live in a remote area the difference can be as big as life or death.

Air medical services, AMS, are an essential component of the health care system. When appropriately used, air critical care transport saves lives and reduces the cost of health care by minimizing the time the critically injured and ill spend out of a hospital, by bringing more medical capabilities to the patient than are normally provided by ground emergency medical services, and by quickly getting the patient to the right specialty care. Dedicated medical helicopters and fixed wing aircraft are mobile flying emergency intensive care units deployed at a moment's notice to patients whose lives depend on rapid care and transport.

In remote rural areas, the use of helicopters often is impractical and unsafe because of the long distances that patients must be transported, sometimes during poor weather conditions. In these situations, the better alternative is a fixed-wing aircraft.

Both helicopters and fixed wing aircraft cost millions of dollars to purchase or lease, operate, house and maintain. But under the way that the tax-exempt bond rules currently work, states are prohibited from using these bonds to finance air ambulance services in rural areas, even though they can use these bonds for helicopters. This result was not what Congress intended, and our bill would make that clear.

Under current law, tax-exempt bonds can not be issued for the purchase of any ``airplane, skybox or other privacy luxury box, health club facility, facility primarily used for gambling, or store the principal business of which is the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off premises.'' The restrictions were enacted in order to prevent tax-exmpt bonds to be used for frivolous or extravagant purposes. Unfortunately, the law has been interpreted to exclude the purchase of new fixed-wing planes to provide air ambulance services, but the purchase of helicopters--which are not airplanes--is permitted.

This result is not what was intended by the restrictions and our bill would simply make it clear that the general restriction against the use of tax-exempt bonds for purchasing an airplane does not apply in the case of planes that are equipped for and exclusively dedicated to emergency medical services.

There is supporting precedent in distinguishing planes for air ambulance services different than other airplanes. The air transportation excise tax provides an exemption for air transportation that is used to provide ``emergency medical services . . . by a fixed- wing aircraft equipped for and exclusively dedicated on that flight to acute care emergency medical services.''

This issue hits close to home for me and my colleagues who are joining me on this legislation, but we are certainly not alone with respect to the need to ensure that folks in our rural and remote areas have access to needed medical services.

Inland Northwest Health Services, INHS, is a non-profit organization that provides critical health care support services in the Inland Northwest, including air ambulance services through Northwest MedStar. INHS is based in Spokane, Washington, and provides health care services in Eastern Washington, Eastern Oregon, Northern Idaho, and Western Montana. Unfortunately, this unintended restriction in the tax code is preventing INHS from asking the appropriate state authorities to issue tax-exempt bonds to finance the purchase of new fixed-wing planes for air ambulance service.

The legislation that I am introducing with Senator Murray is a common-sense fix to this problem, and I hope we can address it quickly.

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

Mr. President, today I honor VADM Bruce E. MacDonald, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, who is retiring after more than 31 years of faithful service to our Nation, culminating in his service as the Judge Advocate General of the Navy.

VADM Bruce MacDonald was born in 1956 in Cincinnati, OH. He graduated from the College of the Holy Cross in 1978 with a bachelor of arts degree in English, and entered the Navy in May of that year.

Vice Admiral MacDonald was commissioned an ensign in the unrestricted line through the Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps. Following surface warfare training, he reported to the USS Hepburn, FF 1055, in October 1979, where he served as the Main Propulsion Assistant and Navigator. After a 2-year tour at Fleet Combat Training Center, Pacific, where he served as Intermediate Combat Systems Team Training and Advanced Multi-Threat Team Training Course Director, he was selected for the Navy's Law Education Program in 1984. He received his degree of Juris Doctor from California Western School of Law in 1987.

In 1987, Vice Admiral MacDonald reported to Naval Legal Service Office, San Diego, where he served as Senior Defense Counsel, Trial Counsel, and Medical Care Recovery Act claims officer. In 1990, he reported aboard USS Independence, CV 62, as the Command Judge Advocate. After receiving a master of laws degree from Harvard Law School in 1992, he was transferred to Seoul, Republic of Korea, where he served as Chief, Operational Law Division, on the staffs of United Nations Command, Combined Forces Command and United States Forces Korea. He also served as Staff Judge Advocate on the staff of U.S. Naval Forces Korea.

In August 1994, Vice Admiral MacDonald reported aboard Naval Legal Service Office Northwest as its executive officer. In November 1996, he became the Officer-in-Charge of Trial

Service Office West Detachment, Bremerton, WA. In July 1997, he reported to Commander Seventh Fleet in Yokosuka, Japan, as the Fleet Judge Advocate. Vice Admiral MacDonald assumed command of Naval Legal Service Office, Northwest, in August 1999, serving as commanding officer until June 2002. He was assigned to the Pentagon as the Special Counsel to the Chief of Naval Operations from June 2002 through October 2004. In November 2004, Vice Admiral MacDonald became the Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Navy and Commander, Naval Legal Service Command. In July 2006, Vice Admiral MacDonald assumed his current position as Judge Advocate General of the Navy.

Vice Admiral MacDonald is admitted to practice before the courts of the State of California and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. His military decorations include the Navy Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit with two Gold Stars, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Navy Meritorious Service Medal with Gold Star, the Navy Commendation Medal with Gold Star, and the Navy Achievement Medal with Gold Star.

It is through the commitment and sacrifice of Americans such as Vice Admiral MacDonald that our Nation is able to continue upon the path of democracy and strive for the betterment of mankind. I am proud to thank him, his wife Karen, and daughter Erin for his honorable service to our nation in the U.S. Navy. I wish him fair winds and following seas as he concludes a distinguished naval career.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medical Efficiency and Delivery Improvement of Care Act, MEDIC, a bill which provides common-sense solutions to many of the most critical problems besetting our health care system. As we embark on reforming health care in America, we are faced with restructuring a system as complex as it is important--a system which includes not only doctors and patients but medical schools, nursing homes, hospitals and community health centers. While every piece of the health care puzzle requires individual attention, one common thread connects them all: the need for improved efficiency among providers though increased access to primary care physicians. They are the ones who can provide coordinated care for patients, leading to better quality and a more efficient system. That is why I am introducing this bill as a vehicle for proposals which increase the efficiency and coordination across the health care spectrum to improve health and save money.

In my State of Washington doctors and hospitals provide some of the a highest quality and most cost-efficient care in the nation. However, instead of rewarding our State for reining in unnecessary costs and improving the health of patients, the current system actually penalizes them. Under the current fee-for-service structure we have today, health care providers are rewarded for maximizing the number of services they provide rather than focusing primarily on health outcomes. This provides a financial disincentive to efficient care because such efficiencies actually result in decreased payments. My bill addresses this issue by linking physician payments to the quality of care they provide, not the amount of services they perform. At the same time, the bill recognizes the need to allow for the differences in the cost of doing business across different regions. The resulting policy creates a fair payment system that increases the overall quality of care while resulting in a savings of $55 billion a year off the Medicare rolls.

The backbone of our health care system is comprised of the men and women who devote their lives to the practice of medicine. While our nation's physician workforce is the best in the world, current policies have left our primary care network woefully lacking, leaving many families--especially those in rural areas--without access to basic care. As few as 2 percent of medical students opt for careers in family medicine and general surgery primarily due to the low pay associated with such specialties. Therefore, a fundamental goal of reform must be expanding the primary care workforce. My legislation includes provisions which provide financial incentives for medical students and teaching hospitals--such as interest-free loans and scholarships for students going into primary care, and increased funding for small and rural hospitals to improve their primary care residency programs. The bill also calls for increasing payments to primary care physicians currently in practice. These policies will result in an improved primary care infrastructure throughout the nation, providing for quality primary care today and well into the future.

Finally, we cannot address health care reform without addressing the needs the individuals who require it the most: those in long-term care. For many older Americans and people with disabilities, long-term care is not a luxury but a necessity, a required service needed to maintain their overall quality of life. Traditionally this care has been provided in institutions such as nursing homes, which can cost upwards of $70,000 a year. While some people require the around-the-clock care provided in nursing homes, many of those in need of long-term care would be better off remaining in their homes where they can continue to be active members of the community. Home- and community-based services provide people the care they need in non-institutional settings, which, in addition to saving a significant amount of money, allows for the freedom and independence to which people are accustomed. This legislation contains several provisions which provide States with the resources they need to move away from institutional long-term care and towards home- and community-based

services, such as increasing Federal Medicaid dollars to transition to home- and community-based services, and providing incentives to create consolidated information centers so consumers and their families can make well-informed decisions about long-term care options. If we gave just 5 percent of those who go into nursing homes the ability to receive care in their own homes and communities, the Federal Government would see a net savings of more than $10 billion over 5 years. This significant savings can be achieved while simultaneously providing better care; a truly win-win situation.

In introducing this bill I am reminding my colleagues that reforming health care need not be a zero-sum game. We can achieve our goals of improving the health care workforce, stabilizing the physician payment structure, improving access to needed care and decreasing the financial and emotional burdens associated with long-term care while simultaneously providing significant savings throughout the health care system. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure these crtical reforms are enacted.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medical Efficiency and Delivery Improvement of Care Act, MEDIC, a bill which provides common-sense solutions to many of the most critical problems besetting our health care system. As we embark on reforming health care in America, we are faced with restructuring a system as complex as it is important--a system which includes not only doctors and patients but medical schools, nursing homes, hospitals and community health centers. While every piece of the health care puzzle requires individual attention, one common thread connects them all: the need for improved efficiency among providers though increased access to primary care physicians. They are the ones who can provide coordinated care for patients, leading to better quality and a more efficient system. That is why I am introducing this bill as a vehicle for proposals which increase the efficiency and coordination across the health care spectrum to improve health and save money.

In my State of Washington doctors and hospitals provide some of the a highest quality and most cost-efficient care in the nation. However, instead of rewarding our State for reining in unnecessary costs and improving the health of patients, the current system actually penalizes them. Under the current fee-for-service structure we have today, health care providers are rewarded for maximizing the number of services they provide rather than focusing primarily on health outcomes. This provides a financial disincentive to efficient care because such efficiencies actually result in decreased payments. My bill addresses this issue by linking physician payments to the quality of care they provide, not the amount of services they perform. At the same time, the bill recognizes the need to allow for the differences in the cost of doing business across different regions. The resulting policy creates a fair payment system that increases the overall quality of care while resulting in a savings of $55 billion a year off the Medicare rolls.

The backbone of our health care system is comprised of the men and women who devote their lives to the practice of medicine. While our nation's physician workforce is the best in the world, current policies have left our primary care network woefully lacking, leaving many families--especially those in rural areas--without access to basic care. As few as 2 percent of medical students opt for careers in family medicine and general surgery primarily due to the low pay associated with such specialties. Therefore, a fundamental goal of reform must be expanding the primary care workforce. My legislation includes provisions which provide financial incentives for medical students and teaching hospitals--such as interest-free loans and scholarships for students going into primary care, and increased funding for small and rural hospitals to improve their primary care residency programs. The bill also calls for increasing payments to primary care physicians currently in practice. These policies will result in an improved primary care infrastructure throughout the nation, providing for quality primary care today and well into the future.

Finally, we cannot address health care reform without addressing the needs the individuals who require it the most: those in long-term care. For many older Americans and people with disabilities, long-term care is not a luxury but a necessity, a required service needed to maintain their overall quality of life. Traditionally this care has been provided in institutions such as nursing homes, which can cost upwards of $70,000 a year. While some people require the around-the-clock care provided in nursing homes, many of those in need of long-term care would be better off remaining in their homes where they can continue to be active members of the community. Home- and community-based services provide people the care they need in non-institutional settings, which, in addition to saving a significant amount of money, allows for the freedom and independence to which people are accustomed. This legislation contains several provisions which provide States with the resources they need to move away from institutional long-term care and towards home- and community-based

services, such as increasing Federal Medicaid dollars to transition to home- and community-based services, and providing incentives to create consolidated information centers so consumers and their families can make well-informed decisions about long-term care options. If we gave just 5 percent of those who go into nursing homes the ability to receive care in their own homes and communities, the Federal Government would see a net savings of more than $10 billion over 5 years. This significant savings can be achieved while simultaneously providing better care; a truly win-win situation.

In introducing this bill I am reminding my colleagues that reforming health care need not be a zero-sum game. We can achieve our goals of improving the health care workforce, stabilizing the physician payment structure, improving access to needed care and decreasing the financial and emotional burdens associated with long-term care while simultaneously providing significant savings throughout the health care system. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure these crtical reforms are enacted.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Home and Community Balanced Incentives Act of 2009, together with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl. As we in the Senate embark on reforming America's health care system, we cannot forget those who are dependent on daily care in order to survive: those in long-term care. Long-term care provides health care and daily living services to the elderly and disabled population, providing them with the ability to live happy, productive lives that age, illness and disability would otherwise prevent.

In 2007, the U.S. spent close to $109 billion on long term institutional care services under the Medicaid program; in my state of Washington it was approximately $2 billion. This amount represents more than 30 percent of all Medicaid payments, and is a number we can easily reduce. This legislation seeks to rebalance how states handle long term care by providing the tools they need to shift people out of expensive institutional care facilities and into home and community based care, where they can remain vibrant, active members of their community.

As Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz once said: There is no place like home. I could not agree more, which is why I believe in providing individuals and

families with the option to remain in their home, where studies have shown the overall quality of life is far superior to that in an institutional facility. Additionally, home and community based care is far more cost efficient than institutional care; by diverting just 5 percent of the long term care community away from institutional care and into home and community based services, we would see a net savings of more than $10 billion dollars over five years. In a time when rising health care spending plays such a pivotal role in the health of the overall economy, these savings represent a giant step towards reining in unnecessary health care spending.

The Home and Community Balanced Incentives Act would achieve the goal of transitioning to home and community based services by offering states modest increases to their federal medical assistance payment, FMAP, for home and community based services. States would have to use these increases to develop the programs needed to provide effective home and community based services. These services will reduce barriers that currently prohibit people from accessing home and community based services.

This bill succeeds in not only saving the Medicaid program a significant amount of money, but it will empower families to make informed decisions about their long term care needs.

Specifically, this bill would: improve case management to help people remain in their homes and communities and out of nursing homes; provide consumer empowerment helping to put individuals in charge of their care; provide a coordinated transition structure for those wishing to leave institutional care and return to their homes and communities; create a clear and well coordinated system for providing long term care information and support; improve methodology for determining eligibility and tracking provider data on services and quality outcomes.

Senator Kohl and I are excited to introduce this important legislation and to begin working with our colleagues on improving the long term care system in America.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce Project 2020: Building on the Promise of Home and Community-Based Services Act with my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow. By the year 2020, almost 1 in 6 Americans will be over the age of 65 and the population of people over the age of 85, the fastest growing segment of the population, will double. Our current long term care financing structure is unsustainable as the population in need of such services rapidly increases. As such, we must turn our focus to reforming the long term care system to provide the best care available to this vulnerable population.

The average cost of a nursing home in this country is $70,000 a year, making this an unrealistic option for most Americans. In fact, most people who end up in a nursing home last just six months before they have spent so much they become poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. This situation is expensive for consumers, for states, and for the federal government. Fortunately, there is a clear answer. It costs Medicaid one third as much to provide someone with home and community based care as it would cost to care for them in a nursing home. In addition, most people want to stay in their own home or community whenever possible. An independent analysis conducted by the Lewin Group shows that Project 2020 would reach over 40 million Americans, while simultaneously reducing Medicare and Medicaid costs by more than $2.8 billion over 5 years.

Project 2020 addresses the urgent need to shift away from institutional care and towards home and community based services in three distinct ways: through enhanced nursing home diversion; by increasing the use of person-centered access to information; and by utilizing evidence-based disease and injury prevention. As I previously mentioned, increased nursing home diversion will not only provide significant savings to the Medicaid program, it will also allow families to stay together and let people be active members of their communities. Through the creation of a person-center access point to information, consumers, family members, and caregivers will be given the tools necessary to make well informed decisions about long term care. Finally, this bill will provide for programs that help consumers get proven education about avoiding preventable diseased and injuries, such as falls and malnutrition, which result in thousands of unnecessary hospitalizations every year.

As you can see, these three programs constitute a common-sense, multifaceted approach to improving the quality of life of individuals and their families, while providing a substantial amount of savings to the health care system.

I am pleased to introduce this important legislation along with my colleague Senator Stabenow and I look forward to working with the rest of my Senate colleagues to provide families with the long term care services and support they need.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Home and Community Balanced Incentives Act of 2009, together with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl. As we in the Senate embark on reforming America's health care system, we cannot forget those who are dependent on daily care in order to survive: those in long-term care. Long-term care provides health care and daily living services to the elderly and disabled population, providing them with the ability to live happy, productive lives that age, illness and disability would otherwise prevent.

In 2007, the U.S. spent close to $109 billion on long term institutional care services under the Medicaid program; in my state of Washington it was approximately $2 billion. This amount represents more than 30 percent of all Medicaid payments, and is a number we can easily reduce. This legislation seeks to rebalance how states handle long term care by providing the tools they need to shift people out of expensive institutional care facilities and into home and community based care, where they can remain vibrant, active members of their community.

As Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz once said: There is no place like home. I could not agree more, which is why I believe in providing individuals and

families with the option to remain in their home, where studies have shown the overall quality of life is far superior to that in an institutional facility. Additionally, home and community based care is far more cost efficient than institutional care; by diverting just 5 percent of the long term care community away from institutional care and into home and community based services, we would see a net savings of more than $10 billion dollars over five years. In a time when rising health care spending plays such a pivotal role in the health of the overall economy, these savings represent a giant step towards reining in unnecessary health care spending.

The Home and Community Balanced Incentives Act would achieve the goal of transitioning to home and community based services by offering states modest increases to their federal medical assistance payment, FMAP, for home and community based services. States would have to use these increases to develop the programs needed to provide effective home and community based services. These services will reduce barriers that currently prohibit people from accessing home and community based services.

This bill succeeds in not only saving the Medicaid program a significant amount of money, but it will empower families to make informed decisions about their long term care needs.

Specifically, this bill would: improve case management to help people remain in their homes and communities and out of nursing homes; provide consumer empowerment helping to put individuals in charge of their care; provide a coordinated transition structure for those wishing to leave institutional care and return to their homes and communities; create a clear and well coordinated system for providing long term care information and support; improve methodology for determining eligibility and tracking provider data on services and quality outcomes.

Senator Kohl and I are excited to introduce this important legislation and to begin working with our colleagues on improving the long term care system in America.

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