Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have a favorite quote about firefighters: ``All men are created equal, then a few become firemen.''

Firefighters are indeed a rare breed--selfless and brave. It is a tragedy when even one is lost. On September 1, Montana and America lost not one but three firefighters in an airplane crash as they rushed to quell the flames of a fire in California. Gene Wahlstrom, Greg Gonsioroski, and Zachary VanderGriend may be gone from this Earth, but they will never be forgotten. Their sacrifice and unwavering dedication to the lives of others stand as an example for all Americans. These brave men were based in Missoula, MT, and though they hailed from Washington and Utah in addition to the Big Sky State, I am proud to call them all Montanans.

Gene Wahlstrom began his 35-year flying career as a crop duster and rose to the position of chief pilot for Neptune Aviation. Gene was a Vietnam veteran and a natural leader and mentor. Folks who knew Gene say he was a kind, genuine, accomplished, and loyal friend.

Most folks who knew Greg Gonsioroski just called him ``Gonzo.'' He began his career as an airplane mechanic but decided to take to the skies himself. Greg was a native of Baker, MT. A family man first, father to Gabriel, Grady, and Gracelyn, and doting husband to Kim, he will be remembered as a gentle giant and a loving and patient father, husband, and friend.

Zachary VanderGriend was a new employee with Neptune Aviation but not new to flying--he had dreamed of being a pilot since he was 2 years old. Zachary got his pilot's license when he was 17 and spent much of his time in volunteer programs such as the Young Eagles. As noted in his eulogy, Zachary was a devoted Christian who loved to fly ``because it was there he felt closest to God.''

I believe service is one of the most honorable things a person can do. Whether it is service to ones community, State, or country, service is the most noble of all human endeavors.

In Montana and indeed across much of the West, fires are an almost constant threat. It is the price we pay for living in one of the most beautiful places on earth. So every year we place our belongings, our homes and our lives in the hands of firefighters--too often without a second thought.

The loss of Gene, Greg, and Zachary gives us pause. As a Montanan and an American, I feel tremendous sadness in their passing but also tremendous gratitude for the time we were graced with their presence.

Mr. President, first, I regret the Senate is unable to take up and pass this legislation. We all know how important it is.

The problem here now is that the Senate has demonstrated the limit of what it can do and what it cannot do. The Senate has now demonstrated it cannot pass the tax extender bills. This cannot be done. I want to follow on what the leader said. This is not a matter of embarrassing anybody. Sometimes our good friends in the other body think we are trying to embarrass them. This is not a matter of trying to embarrass anybody. It is a matter of trying to get some good public policy passed here for our country in these closing days of the Congress. We are talking about energy incentives to help make us more independent from OPEC; mental health, trying to get a mental health parity bill finally passed, which clearly is important for obvious reasons.

Then the awful words are ``tax extenders.'' It helps America be competitive--the research and development tax credit to help kids get to school. This is very simple stuff. It is very basic stuff.

I think some of our colleagues and friends on the other side think we are trying to stuff them, trying to embarrass them, it is partisan. This is not a matter of embarrassing anybody. This is not a partisan matter. This is an American matter--do something for America. If we go back too far in the weeds, some of our colleagues will say: Gee, we have this $700 billion fiscal relief bill and doesn't that add too much to the deficit.

I don't know if it will. It is not like passing a $700 billion appropriations bill. This is an authorization. It is similar to the so- called Chrysler bailout, the so-called New York bailout, where taxpayers made money on the deal.

If I were a Blue Dog, I wouldn't get too worried about the big pricetag. The main point is we need to get this passed now. It is very modest. Next year is another year and we can deal with all kinds of issues we all want to deal with, but for the good of the country I very much say to my colleagues across in the other body on the other side: Please don't miss this opportunity. Please do what is right. Let's pass this bill before you leave town because not to do so would not be a responsible thing to do. It must be passed over there.

It is a Senate bill we are sending over. That is the only responsible way out of this difficult situation we are in. Nothing is perfect. Nobody gets everything. But we have demonstrated now

that the House-passed bills here cannot pass. That has been demonstrated by the objection we just heard. It cannot pass. The only solution then is to take up the bills which were worked in a compromise with the Republican Members here and Blue Dogs over there; insofar as the extender, 2 years, only 1 year paid for. That is the compromise and it seems to me that is pretty fair compromise. It seems to me the House should take it up--I hope they do--and do the right thing.

As the leader said, we did end up paying for the children's health insurance.

Mr. President, the noted economist John Kenneth Galbraith once wrote:

There are two kinds of economists in the world: Those who

don't know the future, and those who don't know that they

don't know the future.

In that sense, we are all economists now. We are all uncertain about our economic future. What we do know is that the stakes for our economic future are high, and we do know the economy is doing poorly right now.

During the last 8 months, more than 600,000 people lost their jobs. Housing prices have been falling. Last month, the median home sales price fell 9\1/2\ percent. That is the largest decline since recordkeeping began in 1999. The experts say we have not yet hit bottom.

Last month, there were more than 300,000 foreclosures. That is a 12- percent increase from the previous month and a 27-percent increase from the year before.

Consumer confidence is low. Last December, the Conference Board's Index for consumer confidence was above 90. Now it is below 57. Last month, retail sales fell by three-tenths of a percent.

In this downturn, Congress acted relatively early. In February, on a bipartisan basis, we passed an economic recovery bill and included in that bill was a tax rebate that put money in people's pockets. Lots of people spent that money, and the second quarter gross domestic product was larger than it otherwise would have been. But almost all those checks have now been sent and spent, and the economy is still in bad shape.

We need another economic recovery package, and that is what this bill would provide. This bill includes help for workers who have lost their jobs. It includes a further expansion in the number of weeks for unemployment benefits and much more.

In June, Congress passed an extension of the number of weeks of unemployment benefits. That extension provided that those who had exhausted their regular 26 weeks of benefits would become eligible for an additional 13 weeks of benefits. We tried to add in a provision for another 13 weeks for those in high-unemployment States, but some of our colleagues and the President opposed that provision so it was dropped in conference.

In August, unemployment hit 6.1 percent. That is the highest level in 5 years. Well, here we are in September and the economy is still struggling. In fact, it is in worse shape. It is not easy to find a job that pays well. In October, for example, it is anticipated that 775,000 workers will exhaust the 13 weeks of additional benefits we provided in June. Another 363,000 workers will exhaust these benefits in November or December. That is a total of more than a million workers.

This bill provides for an extra 7 weeks of benefits in all States, and then it would make right what we could not do earlier this year, which is provide an additional 13 weeks of benefits for individuals who live in States where unemployment is higher than 6 percent. At the moment, that is 18 States.

The bill will also help areas that have been hit by Federal disasters. Under this bill, there would not be a waiting-week penalty when State-extended unemployment benefits kick in during times of disaster. This bill will provide much needed help for overburdened State unemployment systems. We are a society that cares about all its people. In hard economic times, giving additional weeks of unemployment benefits to people who cannot find a job is clearly the right action to take.

But there is another reason providing extra weeks of unemployment benefits will help stimulate the economy. People who are unemployed lose the income from their jobs. They generally don't have the income they need. So if they receive more money, they are likely to spend it; hence, unemployment benefits. When these unemployed workers spend their money, the folks who create the goods and services they buy will need more workers. Those workers will spend the earnings they get. The cycle goes on. Economists call this the multiplier effect.

The chief economist and cofounder of Moody's is Mark Zandi. He estimates that for every dollar of new unemployment benefits, the economy will grow by $1.64. Compared to other options to stimulate the economy, this option has a high bang for the buck.

At times such as these, we need to extend the number of weeks of unemployment benefits. To help strengthen our economy, we also need to provide fiscal relief to State governments.

The economy of a State has a major effect on the state government's budget. When a State's economy weakens, the State government's revenues generally fall off. In addition, as unemployment increases and incomes decline, more people become eligible for

assistance programs like Medicaid. And that increases the demand for State spending.

Almost all of the States have balanced budget requirements. During a time of economic weakness, when revenues drop and the need for expenditures increases, States may have to raise taxes or cut other spending in order to keep their budgets balanced. Unfortunately, that's precisely the wrong fiscal policy.

If a State raises taxes, it reduces the purchasing power of its residents and firms. And that can lead to further economic decline.

Reductions in State spending also lower the purchasing power of those persons or firms that would receive the State funds.

Unfortunately, the current economic weakness is pressing many States to either raise taxes or cut spending. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 30 States had to take actions to reduce their budget deficits for fiscal year 2009, which began on July 1 of this year. And of these 30 States, 13 are facing additional budgetary shortfalls that appeared after they enacted their budgets. These 30 States are facing about $52 billion of shortfalls. If States raise taxes or cut spending by that much, it would place a significant drag on the national economy.

During the last economic downturn, Congress increased the Federal matching rate for the Medicaid program by about 3 percentage points for five quarters. This freed up $10 billion for the States so that they did not have to cut Medicaid benefits. And that helped States to avoid cutting other expenditures or raising taxes. Most economists thought that this fiscal assistance measure for the States worked well.

In February, the Finance Committee reported out an economic recovery bill that included State fiscal assistance in the form of an increase in the Medicaid matching rate. Unfortunately, that provision was not agreed to on the Senate floor.

But the fiscal situation of the States is now worse than it was at the beginning of the year. And so, we should try to help the States. So this bill includes State fiscal relief in the form of an increase in the Medicaid matching rate.

This bill contains an across-the-board temporary increase of 4 percentage points in the Federal Medicaid matching rate. That would provide every State with much needed help. At a time of unprecedented fiscal crisis, I think that every State deserves this level of help.

These are historic economic times. We are all uncertain about the economic future. The stakes are high.

Let us not be found wanting. Let us act to bolster the economy's recovery. And let us vote to advance this bill.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kelcy Paulson and Alicia Marie Johnson be granted the privilege of the floor for today's debate.

Mr. President, yesterday we passed the Health Care Safety Net Act, which reauthorizes multiple programs within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, HELP. This bill does include one section that changes the timeframe for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, to certify rural health clinic, RHC, shortage area designations from 3 years to 4 years. We have worked closely with the chairman and ranking member of the HELP Committee to have language included in H.R. 3343 to align the timeframe for CMS certifications of rural health clinic designations with the timeframe for HRSA designations. This provision is crucial to maintaining access to primary care and other necessary medical services in rural areas. I know that several rural health clinics in Montana would be forced to close their doors if the CMS rule were permitted to go forth. I am proud to stand with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that these important parts of our health care delivery system are protected.

We are most appreciative of the efforts of the HELP Committee to include this language at our request. As chairman of the Finance Committee, I am obligated to point out for the record that Medicare is exclusively governed by title XVIII of the Social Security Act, which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. Inclusion of these Medicare provisions in H.R. 3343 does not represent any waiver of the Finance Committee's jurisdiction on this subject. In the absence of the Chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Kennedy, I would ask the distinguished ranking member, Senator Enzi, to acknowledge that Medicare is governed by title XVIII of the Social Security Act and is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. Again, I would like to extend our thanks to the chairman and ranking member of the HELP Committee for graciously agreeing to our request to include this language in H.R. 3343.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be concluded.

Madam President, on behalf of Senator Grassley and myself, I call up amendment No. 5633, which is at the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, this amendment would extend and improve tax incentives for clean, renewable energy. It is a good energy amendment and energy policy for America.

Here is the bottom line: This amendment would create thousands of new American jobs--jobs that would pay good wages. This amendment would begin the end of America's dependence on foreign oil. And this amendment gives us a chance to show America, before we go home in October, that Congress can actually work for them.

This amendment would extend and improve tax credits for wind and solar power. It would extend and improve tax incentives for building and appliance efficiency. And it would extend and improve incentives for clean coal and biofuels.

And this amendment would create new incentives for clean energy. It includes a credit of up to $7,500 to help consumers purchase plug-in hybrid cars. It includes a breakthrough credit for the capture and storage of carbon dioxide.

And it includes a new tax incentive for what people are calling ``smart meters.'' Smart meters provide real-time information on electricity use. And thus smart meters have proven to reduce electricity use.

This amendment would allow my home State of Montana to further develop its vast energy resources, from wind power to biofuels, from clean coal to solar power.

I have been trying to pass a version of this amendment for most of the last couple years. And I am very pleased that passage may well be at hand.

Mr. President, the last bill that extended energy tax provisions was the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. The ink was hardly dry on that law before I set out to extend and modify the energy incentives that it included.

The Finance Committee undertook a series of hearings on energy-tax policy at the beginning of last year. Our hearing topics ranged from renewable electricity to biofuels, from electric vehicles to carbon sequestration, from energy efficiency to clean coal technology. We heard from a wide range of experts on the need for reliable, long-term tax incentives for clean energy, and how best to invest in these incentives.

We used this input to develop a far-ranging clean-energy bill. It would have invested roughly $30 billion over 10 years.

Our bill included long-term extensions for the wind and solar tax credits. It included long-term extensions and modifications of incentives for improved building efficiency. It included new incentives, such as favorable tax treatment for transmission lines, so we can get renewable power to the market. And it included a credit for cellulosic biofuels, which I am proud to have helped pass a couple months ago in the farm bill.

In keeping with the philosophy of paying-as-you-go, the Finance Committee offset the cost of that package. The offsets largely scaled back or repealed tax breaks for the long-established oil and gas industry.

We scaled back tax incentives for oil and gas companies in order to increase tax support for clean energy. Our rationale was twofold.

First, we argued that as America moves to address global warming, we should begin to provide Federal support for energy that is less carbon- intensive, not more.

Second, we argued that with oil and gas prices on the rise, the oil and gas industry did not need tax incentives that it may have needed in the past. Indeed, in 2005, President Bush said, ``I will tell you with $55 oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore.'' When the Finance Committee reported our bill on June 19, 2007, oil traded at more than $69 a barrel.

We needed 60 votes to pass the bill. And the oil and gas industry lobbied hard to prevent us from reaching that threshold. We had a strong Senate majority for the Finance Committee product. But we fell 3 votes shy of the 60 needed to break a filibuster.

So we went back to the drawing board. We listened to the concerns from the other side that the oil and gas tax offsets were too big. We scaled back our bill. We worked with the House Ways and Means Committee to produce a package with a roughly $20 billion pricetag--about a third smaller than our committee-reported bill.

And the argument for our offsets grew stronger. When the Finance Committee reported its bill, a barrel of oil sold for $69. Four weeks later, oil crossed the $75 threshold. In October of last year, oil topped $85 a barrel. And a month after that, oil reached $95 a barrel.

In December of last year, we presented our revised $20 billion energy package to the Senate. When the Senate voted on that package, oil traded at $92 per barrel.

Our argument swayed a couple of votes, but not enough to break 60. Despite dramatically scaled-back oil and gas tax offsets, our bill fell short by just one vote: 59 votes to 40.

So I went back to the drawing board another time. I wrote an energy tax package without oil and gas offsets.

I introduced legislation to pay for an energy-tax package by closing tax loopholes and by delaying a tax benefit for multinational corporations. These items also offset the cost of expiring nonenergy tax provisions, such as the tuition deduction and the research and development credit.

I have tried to move this package for the last several months. While I dropped the oil and gas tax offsets, some still objected. We made several attempts to pass this vital legislation, with non-oil and gas tax offsets. But it did not clear the Senate.

But now energy prices are sky-high. And many more Senators have come to agree that it makes sense to scale back oil and gas tax breaks.

So Senator Grassley and I worked together to rewrite our energy tax package one more time. The package before us today is a bit more modest than it used to be. But it is still a valuable set of incentives.

It would foster clean-energy jobs, here in America. It would help us to address energy independence. And it would help us to address global warming.

Our amendment would extend the section 45 production tax credit, for wind and biomass and geothermal. It would provide an 8-year extension of the credit for solar projects. And it would remove the $2,000 cap on the residential solar credit, giving consumers a strong incentive to power their homes with solar power. The amendment would extend the biodiesel credit, as well as the incentive for property used to refuel alternative vehicles.

As before, today's amendment also has several new incentives. It includes the new plug-in hybrid credit--an incentive of up to $7,500 for consumers to purchase clean-running, next-generation vehicles. The amendment includes new incentives for conservation as well--in the form of those ``smart meters'' and investments in recycling property.

This energy package would help move us in the right direction toward cleaner, home-grown energy.

The amendment is offset by a series of tax provisions, both energy- and nonenergy-related. For example, the amendment addresses the section 199 manufacturing deduction for oil and gas activity. Congress passed this deduction in 2004, when oil traded at about $50 a barrel. It is set to increase to 9 percent in 2010. Our amendment would freeze that deduction at 6 percent for oil and gas activity.

Another offset closes a loophole related to oil companies' foreign income. This provision passed the Finance Committee last year. And it would streamline and simplify reporting of income earned on overseas oil and gas activity.

Another offset is basis reporting. This provision would improve tax compliance. It would require brokers to tell their clients and the IRS the cost basis of securities sold during the year. This provision would help taxpayers to file more accurate tax returns. And it would help the IRS to more efficiently identify tax returns that are not correctly filed.

In essence, it will help us close the tax gap. As you know, about $340 billion a year worth of revenue legally owed to Uncle Sam is not being collected today. This tax reporting provision will help put a dent in that tax gap.

This amendment does not include everything that I would like. On the clean energy incentives side, I would have liked to extend the renewable production credit for a longer period. I would have liked to provide incentives for improving our electricity grid.

I would have liked a more robust set of measures to address the use of clean coal. No matter how much some people dislike coal, the fact is that we get half of our electricity from coal. We need to burn it cleanly.

As for offsets, while oil has retreated from an all-time high of nearly $150 per barrel, the price of crude closed at $121 a barrel yesterday. That is still a very strong incentive to explore and produce. Whether the price of oil is $121 or $150--or even, as President Bush said, $55--it's hard to argue that oil and gas activity needs a boost from the American taxpayer. We will continue this debate in the next Congress.

This amendment does not do everything. But it would prevent vital energy tax extensions from expiring. And it would add new clean-energy incentives. We cannot start addressing global warming without a recognition that--at least for now--clean and alternative energy generally cannot compete with the fossil-based variety without at least a little help from incentives like these.

And so I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I urge their support to create thousands of jobs in the clean tech industry. I urge their support to help address global warming. I urge their support to help foster greater energy independence.

Let's adopt this amendment. Let's show America that Congress can work for them. And let's finish what we have to do before the end of the session.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes from the time in opposition to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be temporarily set aside and I be allowed to call up my amendment No. 5635.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes of the time in favor of the third amendment to the senior Senator from New Mexico, a lead sponsor of the mental health parity provisions in the amendment.

Madam President, I yield 10 minutes from the time on the bill to the senior Senator from Connecticut, a senior member of the HELP Committee and a longstanding advocate of the mental parity part of the third amendment. I also yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota from the time on the bill for her to use after the Senator from Oregon speaks, following the Senator from Connecticut.

Madam President, this third amendment, which I hope we vote

on successfully very soon, addresses tax relief for American families and tax relief for American businesses. The amendment addresses jobs, families, disaster relief, and mental health parity.

I was particularly struck by the last speaker. She is right. The mental health parity provision is so important for so many reasons, especially for the people who deserve equal treatment, in addition to being in honor of Senator Ted Kennedy and also in honor of Paul Wellstone.

This amendment also prevents the alternative minimum tax from hitting millions more American families. Our economy is struggling, and so are America's working families. Markets are experiencing volatility. At times such as these, Americans need tax cuts that they have come to count on and that can help them get by. That is why this amendment includes a 1-year patch for the alternative minimum tax. This patch would protect more than 21 million Americans from falling victim to the AMT. We will not let more taxpayers fall into the alternative minimum tax.

In addition, the amendment would extend expiring individual and business tax provisions for 2 years. These provisions include the qualified tuition deduction to give families relief from high tuition costs. In my home State of Montana alone, almost 14,000 families would get help with high college tuition.

The amendment also includes the teacher expense deduction. This deduction gives back to teachers some of the money they spend on school supplies to educate America's children.

The amendment includes a State and local sales tax deduction for those States without an income tax.

The amendment covers several business incentives that help keep American businesses competitive and create jobs. The amendment includes incentives such as the research and development credit. This credit gives an incentive to businesses to invest in research. It helps to create and keep American jobs with good wages, and it helps to keep America competitive in the global economy.

This package does more than just extend expiring provisions. It expands the refundable child tax credit. By expanding this valuable credit, nearly 3 million more children will be eligible for this tax incentive.

This amendment would also help to improve health care for countless families dealing with mental illness. This mental health parity legislation would mandate equal assistance for those suffering from mental illness. This legislation has been championed by our late colleague, Paul Wellstone, and our colleagues Ted Kennedy and, of course, Pete Domenici. It has long been a goal in the Senate and it is a goal that we can finally meet today.

The amendment would provide much-needed relief to families and businesses that have been devastated by natural disasters.

Right now, our country is experiencing rough economic times. Congress should do more than just extend legislation; Congress needs to meet the needs of the American people.

Let us help to create jobs. Let us help working families make ends meet. Let us achieve mental health parity once and for all. Let us provide relief for those who have suffered from natural disasters.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:45, all time be considered yielded back, and the Senate then proceed to vote in relation to the amendments and the motion to waive the Budget Act in the order in which offered; that prior to each vote, there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that after the first vote in the sequence, the remaining votes be 10 minutes in duration, with the remaining provisions of the previous order governing consideration of H.R. 6049 still in effect.

Madam President, I further ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of H.R. 6049, the Senate then proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, a couple words on the first amendment to be voted on. The energy amendment would help create well-paid jobs in the growing field of new energy technology, help to secure our independence from high-priced foreign oil, and move us closer to addressing global warming. I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable budget provisions for the consideration of the Baucus-Grassley amendment No. 5635.

I might say, if this point of order is not waived, then the underlying extenders bill will not pass and AMT will be felt by millions of taxpayers next year. As much as we would like to pay for everything, we cannot pay for everything in this context at this time. Without this amendment, the tax extenders will not pass. The underlying bill for the AMT should pass for a year. It fixes the child tax credit, provides support for rural schools, the mental health parity provisions, as well as finally it provides disaster relief for families and businesses. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and waive the point of order.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

It is my understanding that the Senator would like to speak about an issue related to the national disaster relief section of the Finance Committee substitute to H.R. 6409.

Yes, it is the committee's intention that Californians in federally declared disaster areas will be eligible for tax relief in the sections the Senator has referenced.

Mr. President, a couple of words underlying what the leader said in his remarks. These are not only for our membership but also for the other body.

The underlying bill has mental health parity in it. The underlying bill is also 2-year extenders. We are wrapped around the axle too much in this body by having actual extenders every year. This is 2 years.

Third, this is a compromise between both bodies. They want everything paid for, this body does not. It is a compromise in the middle. For those reasons, I very much hope the other body supports this measure we are about to adopt.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 23, 2008, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be Authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 23, 2008 at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Turmoil in U.S. Credit Markets: Recent Actions Regarding Government Sponsored Entities, Investment Banks and Other Financial Institutions.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 23, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, September 23, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 10 a.m. in Room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to hold a hearing entitled ``Regulation of Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to

meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 23, 2008, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Covering the Uninsured: Making Health Insurance Markets Work.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 23, 2008, at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Investing in a Skilled Workforce: Making the Best Use of Tax-Payer Dollars To Maximize Results'' on Tuesday, September 23, 2008. The hearing will commence at 9:30 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 23, 2008.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 23, at 10 a.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Barriers to Justice: Examining Equal Pay for Equal Work'' on Tuesday, September 23, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Judicial Nominations'' on Tuesday, September 23, 2008, at 3 p.m. in room SD-562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 23, 2008.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 23, 2008, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``After Action: A Review of the Combined Federal, State, and Local Activities to Respond and Recover from Hurricanes Gustav and Ike.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 23, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. to hold an open hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 23, 2008, at 10:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``A Reducing the Undercount in the 2010 Census.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 23, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``A Reliance on Smart Power--Reforming the Public Diplomacy Bureaucracy.''

Mr. President, as the old saying goes:

If it were not for the last minute, a lot of things would

not get done.

Well, God willing, we are nearing the last minutes of this Congress and, God willing, we are close to getting a lot of things done.

For the better part of this Congress, we have been working on passing three major tax bills. One has been to put America on sounder energy policy. The second has been to prevent the AMT from raising taxes for millions of American families. The third has been to extend a series of tax incentives that are vital to American jobs and families. Frankly, on these matters, what unites us is far greater than what divides us. And now, at the last minute, it is time to get these bills done.

With this in mind, I have worked with my good friend Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican member of the Finance Committee. Together, we have worked with the majority leader and with the Republican leader. We have worked with Senator Durbin and with Senator Kyl. All of us have come together on a way to get these major tax bills done.

What has divided us on tax measures has been mostly whether to pay for them. Democrats have said we should. Republicans have said we should not. So we and the leaders have come up with an honorable compromise. We propose that we pay for the energy tax bill, that we not pay for the AMT bill, and that we pay for roughly half of the tax extenders bill. With this structure, we believe we can pass these bills, we can get a lot of things done, and we can help to bring on the last minutes of this Congress.

Passing these bills would get a lot of things done. The Energy bill would help to create well-paid jobs in the growing field of new energy technologies. It would help to secure America's independence from high- priced foreign oil. It would help us to move closer to addressing global warming.

The AMT patch would keep some 21.5 million taxpayers from being hit by a tax increase. We must not let more families fall into the AMT.

The tax extenders package would help provide relief in a time of economic uncertainty. The economy clearly is struggling and so are America's working families. Markets are experiencing volatility. In times such as these, Americans need tax cuts they have come to count on to help them get by. The tax extenders package includes the research and development tax credit to spur new, high-paying jobs. It includes a teacher expense deduction to help teachers who put out money from their own pockets to buy school supplies. It includes a tuition deduction to give families needed relief from rising college costs.

As well, this package includes the mental health parity bill. The bill has been a long time in coming. We must pass this bill for many reasons. It would ensure that families facing mental health challenges would receive fair treatment--treatment the same as those facing other health challenges. This legislation is a tribute to the hard work of Senators Paul Wellstone, Ted Kennedy, and Pete Domenici.

This package also includes disaster relief. It would aid the victims of the Midwest floods. It would help the victims of all recent federally declared disasters. It includes relief for the victims of Hurricane Ike and Gustav.

This is a good package. It would make real progress on energy policy. It would extend needed tax relief in hard times. It would give us a chance to show American families that Congress can work for them.

So let's hasten the last minutes of this Congress. With that, let's finally get a lot of things done. Let's do the work of governing that the American people sent us here to do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if the Senator would briefly pause, I wish to thank the Senator from Texas. The Senator has been great to work with as we worked out some provisions to help that State, especially the Galveston area, and the coastal States in getting additional disaster assistance. I thank the Senator as well as his colleague from Texas. We will come back to do more at a later date, but we are doing what we can on this bill, and I say thanks to my colleague for working so well with us.

Mr. President, I think someone is getting the colloquy together. We don't have it at the moment. However, I think we can basically have an impromptu colloquy right here to handle most of it, and if we want to do more later, we can do so.

Essentially, the Senator from Texas very correctly and appropriately called me and said we need to do more for Texas, including Galveston, and some other coastal counties. I said to the Senator, if the disaster provisions in the tax bill, which were somewhat patterned--basically patterned--after the Katrina provisions, many of those would apply to Texas. With the consequences of Ike and Gustav, we went back and looked so we could do more.

The slight problem we faced is it takes some time to pinpoint and to write precise tax provisions that affect

the areas that are hit by disaster. We don't want to give relief to counties or portions of counties where there is no disaster. That would not be the correct thing to do. In fact, we ran into that problem back during the time of Katrina when the initial request, which was, on the surface, appropriate, but when we looked more closely, there were too many dollars spent inappropriately and not enough spent appropriately. It takes a little time to work that out.

After about 2 months, we talked to mayors, local people, and disaster people to make sure we tailored it well. We ended up with a result that was quite good and appropriate. It wasn't as large as the initial estimate, but the initial estimate was way overblown. It was not well tailored. I mentioned this to the Senator from Texas, and she said she understood. On the other hand, she said, ``We need help here.'' I appreciated that and said: You bet.

I tried to find some ways to provide additional disaster assistance in the bill that I hope we take up on Tuesday. Essentially, what we worked out is an increase in the allocation of low-income housing tax credits, as well as an increase in the allocation of private activity bonds. The total amount is geared for those counties on the coast. I think there are four or five coastal counties which were hit the most.

But to make sure we are not too locked in, we also give the Governor the right to reallocate the benefit of these provisions to other areas in Texas but under the total amount. The thought is that we are helping, that way, tailor the assistance most appropriately and specifically.

I say to my friend from Texas, it was good to work with her to find the combination, as I said to the junior Senator from Texas, and there would be an opportunity to come back later for more if that is appropriate.

The Senator is correct. That is my understanding, and that is what we intend to provide.

The Senator is correct. Allocations for both, that is correct.

Mr. President, I might say to the Senator from Texas that I had a nice conversation with the mayor this afternoon, too. He was helpful in explaining what needed to be done. He appreciated the efforts both Senators from Texas have undertaken. I think he would like more, but he understands where we are.

Mr. President, I am very grateful to Senators for working to put this together for several reasons: One, this is going to help to create jobs in America. It is going to very much help American families. Third, it is going to help us move more quickly toward energy independence, something we all need.

On a procedural basis, I very much appreciate that this was worked out on a bipartisan basis. I worked with my good friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, also with the staffs of the majority leader and minority leader, and other key Senators who worked together to put this together.

I am very grateful, frankly, that we see a glide path now. We are going to get this legislation enacted, hopefully, on Tuesday. Again, my thanks to everyone involved.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Finance Committee staff be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the tax bill: Mary Baker, Matthew Berkeley, Matt Kazan, Bridget Mallon, Katheena Mussa, Ford Porter, Sean Thomas, and Caroline Phil.

Mr. President, today, I join with my colleague Chuck Grassley, the Finance Committee's ranking Republican member, to introduce the Energy Independence and Innovation Act of 2008.

This bill will create jobs. It will help consumers with high energy costs. It will contribute to energy security. It will help secure America's place as a world leader in clean energy technology. It will help to prepare this country to address global warming.

For more than a year, we have been trying to pass meaningful energy tax legislation.

In June of last year, the Finance Committee passed a roughly $30 billion energy-tax package. It received a resounding bipartisan committee vote. The bill proposed the largest-ever series of clean energy tax incentives. It was largely offset with reductions in tax breaks for oil and gas companies.

That package's clean energy incentives included a long-term extension of tax credits for wind and solar power, long-term extensions of credits for building efficiency, and extensions and modifications of credits for clean coal technology.

The June 2007 bill also included innovative new items. It included a credit for consumers for plug-in hybrids. It included a new credit to promote capture and storage of carbon dioxide. And it included incentives to transform our electricity grid, so that far-flung sources of renewable power--like wind and solar--can be brought to market.

But many on the other side objected to the bill, because it included reductions in oil and gas tax breaks. We needed 60 votes to pass the Senate. But our bill got 57, and died on the floor.

We tried again in December of last year. We scaled back our oil and gas offsets. And we wrote a smaller, roughly $20 billion package of clean-energy incentives.

But Senators--again, generally from the other side of the aisle-- continued to object to provisions cutting tax breaks for oil and gas companies. That bill failed as well, by just one vote.

In response to those concerns, this year, I wrote an energy tax package without oil and gas offsets. That bill, S. 3335, was paid for by closing tax loopholes and by delaying a tax benefit for multinational corporations that has yet to take effect.

That bill included about $18 billion in energy-tax provisions, including scaled-down versions of the original Finance Committee bill. This ``extenders'' bill also included billions in non-energy extenders. These tax incentives are vital to supporting a range of activities, from research and development to higher education.

Unfortunately, S. 3335 has been objected to, as well. It has not cleared the Senate.

But now energy prices are sky-high. And we have learned that many Senators from the other side of the aisle have come to agree that it makes sense to scale back oil and gas tax breaks.

Accordingly, Senator Grassley and I have worked together to rewrite our original Finance Committee product. And that is largely what is represented in the bill that we are introducing today.

Our bill invests about $26 billion in renewable energy. It pays for it largely by repealing tax breaks for oil and gas firms. These are largely the same tax offsets that we included in our original bill. For example, the bill would deny a tax benefit that was enacted in 2004, when oil traded at about $50 per barrel.

Oil trades at more than $100 per barrel now. Recently it reached nearly $150 per barrel. I am pleased that my colleagues have come to agree that with energy prices this high, these oil and gas tax incentives are not needed.

What do we get for repealing those oil and gas tax breaks? We get long-term extensions of vital clean energy incentives, like the credit for wind and solar electricity. With passage of tax credits for wind power in 2005 and 2006, the American wind energy industry has installed capacity in the last 2 years that equals the capacity it installed in the last 2\1/2\ decades.

The solar industry is also booming. It accounts for a growing number of high-paying jobs in America's clean tech sector. This bill includes an 8-year extension of the credit for solar power. And that extension will fuel this already impressive job growth.

Let's consider what happens if we do not extend these credits. According to a February 2008 study, failure to extend the wind and solar credits would result in the loss of 114,000 jobs. Renewable energy is simply not yet cost-competitive with fossil-based power. It needs the incentives in this bill.

Absent broader mandates on renewable power, we need to continue tax support for renewable electricity production. With those tax incentives, the private sector will continue to invest in this worthy cause.

This bill also contains many other important provisions. It contains extensions of efficiency incentives for buildings, which account for about 40 percent of American energy use. It contains the new plug-in hybrid credit for consumers, at a higher level than last year's bill-- up to $7,500. As did last year's package, the bill we introduce today includes a provision to promote what folks call ``smart meters,'' which provide real-time feedback on electricity usage. These smart meters have been shown to cut consumer energy costs and carbon emissions, as well.

Finally, the bill includes a new production credit for carbon dioxide, providing an incentive for capturing and storing harmful carbon dioxide. This provision was also part of last year's Finance Committee bill. I am pleased that it is part of this bill as well.

This bill does not do everything that I want. If I had my druthers, we would extend and possibly modify--many of these credits for a longer period. And the bill includes some items that I am not overly thrilled about. But those compromises are part of the legislative process. That process will continue after today's introduction.

Meanwhile, I am again pleased that consensus may well be building to redirect tax incentives and invest in the clean technology this country desperately needs.

For the sake of American jobs, for the sake of our Nation's security, and for the sake of our planet's environment, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, today, I join with my colleague Chuck Grassley, the Finance Committee's ranking Republican member, to introduce the Energy Independence and Innovation Act of 2008.

This bill will create jobs. It will help consumers with high energy costs. It will contribute to energy security. It will help secure America's place as a world leader in clean energy technology. It will help to prepare this country to address global warming.

For more than a year, we have been trying to pass meaningful energy tax legislation.

In June of last year, the Finance Committee passed a roughly $30 billion energy-tax package. It received a resounding bipartisan committee vote. The bill proposed the largest-ever series of clean energy tax incentives. It was largely offset with reductions in tax breaks for oil and gas companies.

That package's clean energy incentives included a long-term extension of tax credits for wind and solar power, long-term extensions of credits for building efficiency, and extensions and modifications of credits for clean coal technology.

The June 2007 bill also included innovative new items. It included a credit for consumers for plug-in hybrids. It included a new credit to promote capture and storage of carbon dioxide. And it included incentives to transform our electricity grid, so that far-flung sources of renewable power--like wind and solar--can be brought to market.

But many on the other side objected to the bill, because it included reductions in oil and gas tax breaks. We needed 60 votes to pass the Senate. But our bill got 57, and died on the floor.

We tried again in December of last year. We scaled back our oil and gas offsets. And we wrote a smaller, roughly $20 billion package of clean-energy incentives.

But Senators--again, generally from the other side of the aisle-- continued to object to provisions cutting tax breaks for oil and gas companies. That bill failed as well, by just one vote.

In response to those concerns, this year, I wrote an energy tax package without oil and gas offsets. That bill, S. 3335, was paid for by closing tax loopholes and by delaying a tax benefit for multinational corporations that has yet to take effect.

That bill included about $18 billion in energy-tax provisions, including scaled-down versions of the original Finance Committee bill. This ``extenders'' bill also included billions in non-energy extenders. These tax incentives are vital to supporting a range of activities, from research and development to higher education.

Unfortunately, S. 3335 has been objected to, as well. It has not cleared the Senate.

But now energy prices are sky-high. And we have learned that many Senators from the other side of the aisle have come to agree that it makes sense to scale back oil and gas tax breaks.

Accordingly, Senator Grassley and I have worked together to rewrite our original Finance Committee product. And that is largely what is represented in the bill that we are introducing today.

Our bill invests about $26 billion in renewable energy. It pays for it largely by repealing tax breaks for oil and gas firms. These are largely the same tax offsets that we included in our original bill. For example, the bill would deny a tax benefit that was enacted in 2004, when oil traded at about $50 per barrel.

Oil trades at more than $100 per barrel now. Recently it reached nearly $150 per barrel. I am pleased that my colleagues have come to agree that with energy prices this high, these oil and gas tax incentives are not needed.

What do we get for repealing those oil and gas tax breaks? We get long-term extensions of vital clean energy incentives, like the credit for wind and solar electricity. With passage of tax credits for wind power in 2005 and 2006, the American wind energy industry has installed capacity in the last 2 years that equals the capacity it installed in the last 2\1/2\ decades.

The solar industry is also booming. It accounts for a growing number of high-paying jobs in America's clean tech sector. This bill includes an 8-year extension of the credit for solar power. And that extension will fuel this already impressive job growth.

Let's consider what happens if we do not extend these credits. According to a February 2008 study, failure to extend the wind and solar credits would result in the loss of 114,000 jobs. Renewable energy is simply not yet cost-competitive with fossil-based power. It needs the incentives in this bill.

Absent broader mandates on renewable power, we need to continue tax support for renewable electricity production. With those tax incentives, the private sector will continue to invest in this worthy cause.

This bill also contains many other important provisions. It contains extensions of efficiency incentives for buildings, which account for about 40 percent of American energy use. It contains the new plug-in hybrid credit for consumers, at a higher level than last year's bill-- up to $7,500. As did last year's package, the bill we introduce today includes a provision to promote what folks call ``smart meters,'' which provide real-time feedback on electricity usage. These smart meters have been shown to cut consumer energy costs and carbon emissions, as well.

Finally, the bill includes a new production credit for carbon dioxide, providing an incentive for capturing and storing harmful carbon dioxide. This provision was also part of last year's Finance Committee bill. I am pleased that it is part of this bill as well.

This bill does not do everything that I want. If I had my druthers, we would extend and possibly modify--many of these credits for a longer period. And the bill includes some items that I am not overly thrilled about. But those compromises are part of the legislative process. That process will continue after today's introduction.

Meanwhile, I am again pleased that consensus may well be building to redirect tax incentives and invest in the clean technology this country desperately needs.

For the sake of American jobs, for the sake of our Nation's security, and for the sake of our planet's environment, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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