Floor Statements

Mr. President, how much time is available?

On this side?

Mr. President, I rise to discuss legislation vital to this Nation's transportation infrastructure. The highway trust fund, the means by which we fund our Nation's roads, highways, and bridges, is in trouble. Tomorrow, the U.S. Department of Transportation will slow down payments to States for infrastructure investments. That is highway projects. This is happening because forecasts now suggest that a shortfall of billions of dollars to the highway trust fund will occur in the near future.

The shortfall stems from the agreement of the 2005 highway bill negotiations, when the Bush administration and the Republican-led Congress agreed to spend down the balance of the fund.

Last year, we learned the trust fund would run out of money faster than anticipated. Accordingly, the Finance Committee reported out a bill at that time to address the problem. We tried to move a $5 billion highway fix earlier this year as part of a larger FAA reauthorization bill, and that proposal was blocked. So we had to find other ways to pass this critical highway fix. In the meantime, the highway trust fund problem worsened. As gas prices rose dramatically, fuel tax receipts, which finance the lion's share of the highway trust fund, dropped sharply. In short, as Americans drive less and purchase less fuel, the trust fund shortfall has worsened, even more so than we previously expected.

So we tried to pass the highway trust fund as a stand-alone bill. Recognizing the dramatically worsening state of the fund, we proposed an $8 billion fix--not $5 billion but up to $8 billion. In fact, the $8 billion fix matched the amount that was taken from the highway trust fund when its balance was deemed to be too large back in 1998.

We worked with the House in developing that measure, and the House sent it over to the Senate with a resounding vote of 387 to 87. We attempted to clear that bill through the Senate by unanimous consent on June 26, but the bill was blocked again.

Then before Congress recessed in August, I again attempted to move this $8 billion highway trust fund fix as part of the Jobs, Energy, Families, and Disaster Relief Act. But that measure also failed to pass.

Ensuring the highway trust fund remains solvent means my State of Montana will not have to suffer more than $98 million in funding cuts, as well as approximately 3,500 job losses in the next year.

Nationwide, the industry experts tell us the funding cuts to States would be at least $14 billion, with job losses approaching 400,000 if we fail to address this trust fund need. This will occur at a time when nationwide unemployment is at its highest level in 5 years.

In transferring $8 billion from the general fund into the highway trust fund, we will ensure delivery of the full $41.2 billion in guaranteed highway funding for fiscal year 2009.

It is important to remember the States have been relying on the 2005 agreement between the Bush administration and Congress when developing State budgets over the last several years. They relied on us.

Fixing the highway trust fund will preserve Federal funding for roads, highways, and bridges, and it will preserve good-paying jobs that rely on construction and maintenance projects.

An important point here, too, is no offset is required to fix the highway trust fund and that is because the $8 billion transferred is intergovernmental. The Congressional Budget Office indicates this fix does not constitute a spending outlay and, thus, would not violate the pay-go rules. Likewise, the Joint Committee on Taxation confirms this transfer will have no revenue effect.

I am pleased the Bush administration has finally come to its senses and realized the need to address this problem. I am pleased my colleagues in the Senate across the aisle have removed their objections, and I am pleased we are now finally going to do what needed to be done for over a year.

I wish to note that the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, the senior Senator from Washington, has joined me in doing everything she could do to get this problem fixed. She talked with me innumerable times and many Senators. She was very concerned about this situation and worked so hard. She deserves the lion's share of the credit for all the work she has done. I congratulate her for her staying efforts in that regard.

We should not delay any further. We should remember the old adage: There are no Democratic roads, there are no Republican roads, only American roads. We need to fix this trust fund now. Our States and constituents are relying on it.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.

Madam President, I move to lay that on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4979

Mr. President, in 2006, America spent more than $2 trillion on health care. By any standard, $2 trillion is an enormous figure. Health care accounts for 16 percent of our Nation's economy. That means that for every $100 in goods and services produced and consumed in America in 2006, $16 were for health care. And the health care share of the economy is expected to reach 20 percent in just 10 years.

These projections are cause for concern. If so much of our Nation's resources are devoted to heath care, we need to ask ourselves what we are--or are not--getting for it.

The answer is that we are getting a mixed bag of goods. Some patients receive medical treatments that work well. Some patients receive treatments that don't work well. In many cases, doctors and patients don't have enough reliable evidence to know whether treatments work or don't.

Of the $2 trillion spent on health in 2006, only \1/10\ of 1 percent was spent to assess what works and what doesn't. At the Federal level, only $15 million was directly appropriated to compare the effectiveness of health interventions and services. People who purchase other goods-- anything from cars to computers--use information to compare the value of the different products before they purchase. Physicians and patients deserve better. We should devote more than \1/10\ of 1 percent of health spending to study how well health goods and services actually work.

Rapid innovation has led to an ever-changing array of new and sometimes expensive technologies. The age of personalized medicine and genetic engineering will provide even more choices for patients and their physicians. Indeed, patients and physicians can face great difficulty in choosing among treatment options.

But much of the information about those options is biased. Much information about those options is of poor quality. And for many treatments, there are large gaps in what is known to be most effective.

With a paucity of sound evidence, clinical guidelines and treatment protocols can vary widely. If there has ever been a need for better information--on what works, for which patients, under which circumstances--it is in this age of rapid innovation of technology.

Several august bodies--including the Institute of Medicine, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, and the Congressional Budget Office--have called on Congress to create a national entity charged with conducting research to determine what works in health care.

Today, I am proud to introduce the Comparative Effectiveness Research Act of 2008. I am joined by the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad. He and I share a deep concern about rising health care costs. And we share a deep commitment to finding ways to address it.

This bill does what the experts suggest. It would create a new entity responsible for generating better information on the effectiveness of health care treatments.

Specifically, the bill would create a nonprofit corporation responsible for setting national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. The corporation, which would be called the Health Care Comparative Effectiveness Research Institute, would be a private entity. But it would be governed by a public-private sector Board of Governors. It would not be an agency of the Federal Government.

In addition to setting national priorities, the Institute would provide for the conduct of research studies that answer the most pressing questions about what works in health care. The Institute would have the authority to contract with experienced Federal agencies, such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, or AHRQ, and the National Institutes for Health, or NIH, or with private researchers if appropriate, for the conduct of the actual research. The Institute would also be charged with disseminating the findings of the research in ways that patients and providers can understand.

The Institute would be required to assess the full spectrum of health interventions, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, medical procedures, medical services, and other therapies. This type of research is often called ``comparative effectiveness research,'' because it evaluates and compares the clinical effect of alternative medical treatments. This type of research provides better quality evidence concerning the best treatment, prevention, and management of the health conditions. Most importantly, this type of research helps patients, providers, and payers of health care to make more informed decisions.

While many experts have called for creation of a new entity, they do not specify how the entity should be structured. This bill would create a private, nonprofit institute rather than a new entity within the executive branch or legislative. Keeping it private would remove the potential for political influence on the development of national research priorities. Comparative effectiveness research will be more credible, and more useful, if it is done independently of political influence and with broad stakeholder input.

This bill includes stringent requirements for public input, transparency of process and findings, and integrity of the research. For example, the Institute would be required to publish its rules, proceedings, and reports on a public Internet site. Its meetings would be open to the public. It would be required to provide public comment periods at key stages, in addition to open forums to solicit and obtain public input on the Institute's activities.

This bill would also require accountability and government oversight of finances and the mission. The Institute would be subject to annual financial audits. And the Comptroller General would perform periodic audits of the activities of the Institute to ensure that the Institute would meet its statutory mission and would do so in a fair, open, and credible way.

Finally, this bill would provide a stable source of funding for the Institute. For the first 3 years, general revenues would be used to start up the Institute. In the 4th year, funding would move to an all- payer system--from both public and private sources. Annual contributions would be made from the Medicare Trust Funds, from revenues generated by a fee on private health insurance policies, and from general revenues. The work of the new Institute would benefit Americans who receive health care through the public and private sources. Therefore, public and private sources should contribute to this type of research. The private insurance fee would be $1 per insured person per year. Funding from Medicare would also be $1 per beneficiary per year.

All sources of funding for the Institute would sunset after 10 years. That

way, Congress could review a report from the Comptroller General on the value of the research to the public and private insurance sectors. Total funding for the first year would be $5 million, and funding would increase to $300 million a year by the year 2013.

It is high time that America invested more than a fraction of a percent to generate knowledge about what works in health care, to improve the efficiency and the quality of our health care system, and to give patients and doctors better information to make treatment decisions. It is high time that we built a foundation of evidence for the trillions of dollars spent on health in America each year.

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

Mr. President, in 2006, America spent more than $2 trillion on health care. By any standard, $2 trillion is an enormous figure. Health care accounts for 16 percent of our Nation's economy. That means that for every $100 in goods and services produced and consumed in America in 2006, $16 were for health care. And the health care share of the economy is expected to reach 20 percent in just 10 years.

These projections are cause for concern. If so much of our Nation's resources are devoted to heath care, we need to ask ourselves what we are--or are not--getting for it.

The answer is that we are getting a mixed bag of goods. Some patients receive medical treatments that work well. Some patients receive treatments that don't work well. In many cases, doctors and patients don't have enough reliable evidence to know whether treatments work or don't.

Of the $2 trillion spent on health in 2006, only \1/10\ of 1 percent was spent to assess what works and what doesn't. At the Federal level, only $15 million was directly appropriated to compare the effectiveness of health interventions and services. People who purchase other goods-- anything from cars to computers--use information to compare the value of the different products before they purchase. Physicians and patients deserve better. We should devote more than \1/10\ of 1 percent of health spending to study how well health goods and services actually work.

Rapid innovation has led to an ever-changing array of new and sometimes expensive technologies. The age of personalized medicine and genetic engineering will provide even more choices for patients and their physicians. Indeed, patients and physicians can face great difficulty in choosing among treatment options.

But much of the information about those options is biased. Much information about those options is of poor quality. And for many treatments, there are large gaps in what is known to be most effective.

With a paucity of sound evidence, clinical guidelines and treatment protocols can vary widely. If there has ever been a need for better information--on what works, for which patients, under which circumstances--it is in this age of rapid innovation of technology.

Several august bodies--including the Institute of Medicine, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, and the Congressional Budget Office--have called on Congress to create a national entity charged with conducting research to determine what works in health care.

Today, I am proud to introduce the Comparative Effectiveness Research Act of 2008. I am joined by the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad. He and I share a deep concern about rising health care costs. And we share a deep commitment to finding ways to address it.

This bill does what the experts suggest. It would create a new entity responsible for generating better information on the effectiveness of health care treatments.

Specifically, the bill would create a nonprofit corporation responsible for setting national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. The corporation, which would be called the Health Care Comparative Effectiveness Research Institute, would be a private entity. But it would be governed by a public-private sector Board of Governors. It would not be an agency of the Federal Government.

In addition to setting national priorities, the Institute would provide for the conduct of research studies that answer the most pressing questions about what works in health care. The Institute would have the authority to contract with experienced Federal agencies, such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, or AHRQ, and the National Institutes for Health, or NIH, or with private researchers if appropriate, for the conduct of the actual research. The Institute would also be charged with disseminating the findings of the research in ways that patients and providers can understand.

The Institute would be required to assess the full spectrum of health interventions, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, medical procedures, medical services, and other therapies. This type of research is often called ``comparative effectiveness research,'' because it evaluates and compares the clinical effect of alternative medical treatments. This type of research provides better quality evidence concerning the best treatment, prevention, and management of the health conditions. Most importantly, this type of research helps patients, providers, and payers of health care to make more informed decisions.

While many experts have called for creation of a new entity, they do not specify how the entity should be structured. This bill would create a private, nonprofit institute rather than a new entity within the executive branch or legislative. Keeping it private would remove the potential for political influence on the development of national research priorities. Comparative effectiveness research will be more credible, and more useful, if it is done independently of political influence and with broad stakeholder input.

This bill includes stringent requirements for public input, transparency of process and findings, and integrity of the research. For example, the Institute would be required to publish its rules, proceedings, and reports on a public Internet site. Its meetings would be open to the public. It would be required to provide public comment periods at key stages, in addition to open forums to solicit and obtain public input on the Institute's activities.

This bill would also require accountability and government oversight of finances and the mission. The Institute would be subject to annual financial audits. And the Comptroller General would perform periodic audits of the activities of the Institute to ensure that the Institute would meet its statutory mission and would do so in a fair, open, and credible way.

Finally, this bill would provide a stable source of funding for the Institute. For the first 3 years, general revenues would be used to start up the Institute. In the 4th year, funding would move to an all- payer system--from both public and private sources. Annual contributions would be made from the Medicare Trust Funds, from revenues generated by a fee on private health insurance policies, and from general revenues. The work of the new Institute would benefit Americans who receive health care through the public and private sources. Therefore, public and private sources should contribute to this type of research. The private insurance fee would be $1 per insured person per year. Funding from Medicare would also be $1 per beneficiary per year.

All sources of funding for the Institute would sunset after 10 years. That

way, Congress could review a report from the Comptroller General on the value of the research to the public and private insurance sectors. Total funding for the first year would be $5 million, and funding would increase to $300 million a year by the year 2013.

It is high time that America invested more than a fraction of a percent to generate knowledge about what works in health care, to improve the efficiency and the quality of our health care system, and to give patients and doctors better information to make treatment decisions. It is high time that we built a foundation of evidence for the trillions of dollars spent on health in America each year.

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

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I wish to clarify the remaining time.

I ask unanimous consent that during the remaining time, the Senator from Montana be allocated the remainder of that 5 minutes on the majority side.

I thank the Senator from Texas, and I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I remind my good friend from Texas that there are a lot of things he favors and I think we all favor. He mentioned plug-in hybrid automobiles and clean coal technologies, and they are in this bill. Frankly, I believe most Senators want to pass this bill. I urge Senators on both sides to vote for it. We can, frankly, pass it and send it back over to the House and be done with it. The American people want us to pass this legislation.

Mr. President, the great writer William Faulkner said of the artist:

Only what he creates is important, since there is nothing

new to be said.

Writers could say much the same about us. What is important is not what we say, but what we create. What is important here is not the speeches, but the laws that we pass.

Today, we have a chance to do something important. Today, we can choose to legislate.

We can proceed to a bill that addresses what's important. It is a bill about jobs. It is a bill about energy. It is a bill about families.

I am speaking of S. 3335, the Jobs, Energy, Families, and Disaster Relief Act of 2008--what some call the tax extenders bill. Today, we can choose to do something important. We can move to this bill.

This bill would do something to create jobs.

This bill would extend the research and development credit. This credit encourages businesses to invest in research. It helps to keep America competitive in the global economy.

America accounts for one-third of the world's spending on scientific research and development, ranking first among all countries. Relative to the size of our economy, however, America stands in sixth place.

Our R&D tax credit expired on December 31 of last year. American corporations are at a competitive disadvantage. They are unsure if they will be able to obtain the benefit of the credit this year. They need to plan for the future.

About 70 percent of R&D spending goes to salaries. That helps to create jobs. These are jobs that help America stay in the forefront of several global industries.

We can do something today to create high-paying R&D jobs, with this bill.

This bill would also create jobs in infrastructure, by repairing a shortfall in the highway trust fund. The highway trust fund relies on fuel taxes for 90 percent of its revenues. And as fuel prices have risen to record highs, Americans are driving less and buying fewer gallons of gas.

As a result, fuel tax receipts are down sharply. The Department of Transportation reported that Americans drove 9\1/2\ billion fewer miles in May than they did a year before. And OMB projects a highway trust fund deficit for 2009 of more than $3 billion.

We have a problem with highway trust fund finances. And that financing problem is a jobs problem.

Failing to fix the highway trust fund's shortfall will cause Federal transportation funding cuts of more than a third. Industry experts have calculated that funding cuts of this magnitude would result in the loss of about 380,000 jobs.

We can do something today to create well-paid infrastructure jobs, with this bill.

This bill would do something about energy.

This bill would take real action to break America's dependence on oil. Gasoline is more than $4 a gallon across the country. Americans want Congress to steer away from foreign oil. They want us to turn toward alternative and renewable energies.

This bill has the right energy incentives to help America to turn the corner. It would support renewable electricity from wind, water, biomass, and other sources. It would boost biodiesel and solar energy. It would reward energy-efficiency, and push for cleaner coal plants.

It would even provide a brand new tax credit for plug-in electric cars, so that Americans could choose vehicles that use less fossil fuel or none at all.

Mr. President, do you know what. If every time a car went up to the gas pump and filled up and the vehicle also had electric power, with a battery in the car, and it would go 50 miles on that electric power, guess what. Crude oil imports in this country would fall by 50 percent--It would be cut in half if every time a car would drive up to the pump and, when it fills up, 50 miles that that car drives is on electric energy--a battery. It would cut oil imports by 50 percent-- something as simple as that.

I ask that I be notified 30 seconds before my time expires.

With gas at $4 a gallon, why would we wait another minute to get these energy technologies moving?

We can do something today to create alternative sources of energy, with this bill.

This bill would do something for American families.

This bill would keep the alternative minimum tax from ensnaring new taxpayers. Without this legislation, 21 million additional taxpayers would have to pay the AMT.

We can do something today to protect families from the AMT, with this bill.

This bill would help teachers who have taken it upon themselves to spend

money from their own pockets on classroom supplies. The average teacher's salary is about $38,000 a year. But in 2005 alone, 3\1/2\ million families took the teacher expense deduction.

We can do something today to help teachers' families, with this bill.

This bill would help families with tuition expenses. The average tuition and fees at a 4-year private college in New England is now more than $30,000 a year. Four and a half million families took the qualified tuition deduction in 2005. But the provision expired at the end of 2007.

We can do something today to help families paying for college, with this bill.

This bill would help families with the State and local sales tax deduction. This deduction gives a tax benefit to taxpayers who live in States without an income tax, including Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming. In 2005, this deduction benefitted more than 11 million families.

This bill would expand the child tax credit. Current law bars about 6 million working families from receiving any relief under the child tax credit. Families with 10 million children receive a partial credit. With this bill, the families of nearly 3 million more children would be eligible for this tax relief.

We can do something today to help working families with kids, with this bill.

This bill would also help improve health care for countless families dealing with mental illness. It includes the mental-health-parity legislation advanced by Senators Ted Kennedy, Pete Domenici, and the late Paul Wellstone.

This bill would require private insurance plans that offer mental health benefits as part of their coverage to offer the same level of benefits as they offer for medical-surgical benefits.

Mental illness is a disease like any other. We should treat it that way. We can do something about it, today.

This bill would provide much-needed relief to families who have suffered from natural disasters. This bill contains a package of disaster relief provisions developed to address all Federally-declared disaster areas with immediate, reliable, and robust tax relief.

We can do something today to help families struck by disasters, with this bill.

I say to my Colleagues: If you want to do something about creating jobs before you go back home, then vote for this bill.

If you want to do something about energy before you go back home, then vote for this bill.

If you want to do something to provide tax relief for American families before you go back home, then vote for this bill.

What's important is not what we say. What is important is the laws that we pass.

Let us pass a law that creates jobs. Let us pass a law that fosters new forms of energy. Let us pass a law that helps the American family.

Today, let us do something important. Today, let us choose to legislate. And today, let us move to this bill.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for the next 15 minutes.

Mr. President, in the book, ``The Ethics of the Fathers,'' the sage Rabbi Tarfon taught:

It is not up to us to finish the work, but neither are we

free to avoid it.

Later this week, the Senate will vote on the Jobs, Energy, Families and Disaster Relief Act of 2008. This bill may not finish all the work that we need to do. But this bill does do work that we are not free to avoid. I urge my colleagues to vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed.

This legislation is important to our economy, to our energy security, and to the wellbeing of America's working families. And it is also vital to helping people harmed by natural disasters to get back on their feet.

Some call this an ``extenders'' package. It extends tax incentives that are important to American businesses and families.

It includes the deduction for college tuition and the R&D credit. It includes the deduction for State and local income taxes. And it includes the new markets tax credit which helps spur investment in low- income communities.

But S. 3335 is more than just an extenders bill. It also contains vital new provisions.

It includes tax credits for plug-in vehicles. It includes a long-term extension of tax credits for solar power. And it includes a badly needed fix to the highway trust fund, which finances a large portion of our Nation's transportation infrastructure. That has to be extended; otherwise, a lot of jobs will go wanting. A lot of construction jobs will not be there, unless we maintain and continue financing for the highway program.

I urge my colleagues to take up this bill and pass it.

The vote this week will not be the first time this year that the Senate has sought to extend this important tax legislation.

In May, the House passed H.R. 6049, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008. That bill included a roughly $17 billion energy tax package. And it included $37 billion in other tax extenders. The bill was offset with responsible tax policies that would have changed the timing of tax on offshore hedge fund managers and multinational corporations.

The majority leader tried to take up that bill in June. In fact, he tried twice. But some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would not allow us to proceed to the bill.

The first attempt to proceed failed, 50 to 44, on June 10. The second attempt failed a week later, with a vote of 52 to 44.

Some argued that the House bill lacked key items. For example, some said that it should have included relief from the alternative minimum tax.

And some objected to provisions that were in the bill. For example, some said that it should not have included Davis-Bacon protections on prevailing wages.

In response to those and other concerns, I introduced S. 3125, a revised version of the bill that passed the House.

S. 3125 included a one-year patch for the alternative minimum tax. It would prevent more than 20 million families from paying a tax that Congress never intended them to pay.

And in an effort to reach bipartisan compromise, that bill omitted the Davis-Bacon provision.

But my friends on the other side still objected to that package. They expressed concern over other items, such as a provision that allows attorney contingency fees to be deducted in the year that they are incurred, rather than upon disposition of the case.

I worked to address the concerns of my friends on the other side of the aisle. And last Friday, I introduced another bill S. 3335, the Jobs, Energy, Families and Disaster Relief Act of 2008. That is the bill that I hope the Senate will turn to this week.

This legislation includes the core of the previous bill I introduced. It includes a strong energy package. It includes an AMT patch. And it includes the House-passed individual and business tax extenders.

S. 3335 also contains several new items. In response to growing concerns over our Nation's crumbling infrastructure, this bill would shore up the highway trust fund. Last Wednesday, the House passed a stand-alone version of this highway fix by an overwhelming vote of 387 to 37.

And S. 3335 contains billions in relief for those affected by devastating natural disasters.

And in response to the other key criticism of S. 3125, the one related to attorneys' fees, S. 3335 dropped that provision altogether.

In short, the bill that we will have a chance to vote on this week is aimed at helping create jobs, advancing our energy independence, helping working families, and offering relief to those areas that have experienced natural disasters.

And by making major modifications to past versions of the bill, it is aimed at getting broad support.

Now, some Senators really want to vote for this because it is the right thing to do. But they are told by the leadership: Don't do it. They want to vote for it; they are chafing at the bit to vote for it, but they are told not to do it. Why, I don't know.

Now some on the other side have also objected that we should not consider a revenue bill that originated in the Senate.

While it is true that the House must originate revenue bills, there is precedent for the Senate's acting in advance of the House.

For example, the other side did just that in moving the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act in 2005. The Senate took up its bill, S. 2020, on November 16, 2005, nearly a month before the Senate received the House companion measure.

And in the case of the bill before us this week, I think that it is important for Senators to be able to vote for the improved version of the bill, the bill that includes all the changes that I have been discussing.

And after we get a good vote on this bill, we can move to amend a House-passed bill with our Senate measure.

Congress needs to do more than just extend legislation. Congress should work on new policy, new legislation, and new ideas.

We need to take a hard look at our Tax Code. We need to make it fairer and simpler. I have begun that process, through a series of hearings in the Finance Committee.

We need to address the unsustainable growth in health care costs. I have also begun an effort to that end, through a series of hearings on health care, which accounts for one-sixth of America's economy.

And we need to address the vital need for a new energy policy, one that accounts for the changing realities of our environment, our national security, and our economy.

For more than a year, I have been working to pass a meaningful package of energy-tax incentives. It is a package with the goal of moving this country toward greater energy independence. And it is a package that would help to prepare our economy for a system that also addresses global warming.

These are big challenges. And they will not be solved through one bill, or one congressional session. But even though we cannot finish the work, we still have an obligation to do what we can.

This bill may not finish all the work that we need to do. But this bill does do work that we are obligated to do.

Let us do that work. Let us invoke cloture on the motion to proceed. And let us provide this help to America's economy, to America's energy security, and to the wellbeing of America's working families.

President Lyndon Johnson once wrote:

A nation that fails to plan intelligently for the

development and protection of its precious waters will be

condemned to wither because of its shortsightedness. The hard

lessons of history are clear, written on the deserted sands

and ruins of once proud civilizations.

I rise today to talk about a proud Nation from my home State of Montana that is planning for the development and protection of its priceless water.

The nation I am referring to is the Crow Nation, and today, along with Senator Tester, I introduced a bill to ratify the Crow Tribe's water compact.

This compact will protect the Crow Tribe's water rights, provide for the development of municipal and agricultural water systems, and create good paying jobs. Everyone has a right to have access to clean, reliable water, and Senator Tester and I are here today to help make sure that right is upheld.

In 1908, the Supreme Court established that when Congress set aside land for Native American tribes, it also reserved water rights for the tribes to develop their lands for agriculture. The Crow Tribe has waited nearly 100 years to secure the rights to its water. The bill I am introducing today will ensure that the Crow people can finally access the water that is rightly theirs while protecting the water rights of nontribal water users.

This bill that Senator Tester and I are introducing also ensures that the Crow Tribe has the infrastructure it needs to develop its water resources. To this end, the bill authorizes funding for a drinking water system that will bring clean water to families across the reservation. This project will help protect public health and help create good paying jobs.

The bill also authorizes the rehabilitation of the Crow Tribe's irrigation system. The Crows' land is important to their identity, their history, and their economy. Rehabilitating the Crow Tribe's irrigation system will ensure that Crow farmers and ranchers can work their land for generations to come.

Mr. President, the Crow Nation is a proud nation with abundant water resources. The bill I have developed with the Crow tribal leadership is a reflection of the Crow people's good foresight. This legislation will protect the Crow Tribe's water, create good paying jobs, and ensure that the Crow continue to be a proud and prosperous people.

Yes, the Senator is correct. And for this purpose a special need may relate to the physical facilities of the property, such as a building that offers day care, the services that are to be provided, or the circumstances of the tenants, such as low-income parents attending college.. The basic structure of the low-income housing tax credit is based on the premise that the States have the prime responsibility to administer this program, and they have done an excellent job so far. They currently have the responsibility to determine the housing priorities of the State and to give priority to tenant populations with special housing needs. The newly codified general public use rule reinforces the latitude of the States to decide how housing credit dollars are allocated.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday July 29, 2008, at 5:30 p.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 July 29, 2008 at 10 a.m., to conduct a committee hearing entitled ``State of the Insurance Industry: Examining the Current Regulatory and Oversight Structure.''

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, July 29,2008, at 10:30 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 29, 2008, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 29, 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 ``Dangerous Dust: Is OSHA Doing Enough to Protect Workers?'' on Tuesday, July 29, 2008. The hearing will commence at 10 a.m. in room 430 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 ``Music and Radio in the 21st Century: Assuring Fair Rates and Rules Across Platforms'' on Tuesday, July 29, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 29, 2008, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, Committee on Environment and Public Works, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing entitled, ``EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR): Recent Court Decision and Its Implications.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 29, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Payroll Tax Abuse: Businesses Owe Billions and What Needs To Be Done About It.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Finance Committee staff be allowed floor privileges: Eric Taylor, Damian Kudelka, Helia Jazayeri, Mollie Lane, Adam Lythgoe, Ashleen Williams, Susan Hinck, Kevin Olp, Lucan Hamilton, Katie Meyer, Matt Smith, Connie Cookson, Hy Hinojosa, Mary Baker, and Bridget Mallon.

I object.

Mr. President, T.S. Eliot wrote: ``Home is where one starts from.''

And that is true of the tax provisions of this housing bill, the Housing Assistance Tax Act. They start with home. They start with trying to help hardworking American families to stay in their homes. That's where we start.

The tax provisions in this bill provide housing relief to homeowners and stability to the housing market at a critical time.

For most Americans, their home is their biggest asset. Homes represent about a third of household net worth.

But housing is losing its role as a source of family wealth creation. Nationally, since April of last year, home prices have fallen by more than 15 percent. This decline in home values is the largest that America has seen in 20 years.

In addition to declining home values, homes sales have slowed, as foreclosures have risen. As of May 2008, sales of new single-family houses were about 40 percent below where they were a year before.

Foreclosures are at their highest rate in at last three decades. In June, 1 in every 501 households was at some stage in the foreclosure process. Since January 2005, bank seizures have risen 171 percent. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 2.8 million foreclosure proceedings could be initiated in the next 4 years. About 1.1 million of these homeowners will ultimately lose their homes through foreclosure.

Behind every foreclosed property, there is a family. There is a family losing its home and there is a community left behind.

Another part of our housing story is the crisis in the housing finance system. The Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, known as Freddie Mac, are government sponsored enterprises, or GSEs. These GSEs provide critical financial support to the housing market.

These GSEs are market-makers in America's secondary mortgage market. They help to replenish the money supply for mortgages. They help to make money available for housing purchases. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac own or guarantee about half of America's $12 trillion mortgage market. They support about 70 percent of new mortgages.

The subprime mortgage crisis and ensuing home value declines have hit these GSEs particularly hard. Freddie Mac lost 73 percent of its value in New York trading this year. Fannie Mae lost 66 percent. Combined losses at the companies could run into the billions of dollars. These financial troubles have eroded confidence in the housing finance system. This threatens to destabilize the mortgage market vital to ordinary homebuyers.

These are only some of the housing challenges facing American families today. Congress and the Senate Finance Committee, which I chair, recognize the importance of these matters. That is why we have taken action to alleviate the negative consequences of the housing crisis.

In the bill before us, we curb the rising costs of owning a home by creating a nonitemizer property tax deduction for tax year 2008. Currently, homeowners are allowed to deduct local real estate property taxes from their Federal tax returns only if they itemize. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, more than 28 million taxpayers pay property taxes, but do not itemize. This bill would provide millions of home owners who claim the standard deduction with an additional standard deduction for state and local real property taxes. The maximum amount that may be claimed under this provision is $500 for an individual, or $1,000 for joint filers.

The nonitemizer deduction would benefit people with low incomes. It would benefit those who have already paid off their mortgages and thus do not have a reason to itemize. It would benefit young families just starting out. And it would benefit senior citizens. The Congressional Research Service estimates that about 130,000 property-tax payers could benefit in my home State of Montana alone.

This bill would help to reduce the excess supply in the housing market due to declining home values and rising foreclosures. It would do so with a refundable first-time home buyer credit. The bill would give first-time home buyers a refundable tax credit equivalent to an interest free loan of 10 percent of the purchase price of a home, up to $7,500.

The provision applies to homes purchased between April 9, 2008, and July 1, 2009. Taxpayers receiving this tax credit would need to repay to the government any amount received under this provision. They could pay it back in equal installments over 15 years. The credit begins to phase out for taxpayers with adjusted gross income in excess of $75,000, or $150,000 in the case of a joint return.

This first-time home buyer credit will provide significant, immediate

stimulus to get potential homebuyers into the market and into homes. And it will help to get homebuilders, and the housing industry, back on track. The short-term nature of this credit is also critical because it would avoid over-subsidizing the housing industry in the long run.

This bill would help current homeowners to avoid foreclosures with a temporary increase in mortgage revenue bonds. Under current law, there is a national limit on the annual amount of tax-exempt housing bonds that each state may issue. Many States have reached their limit. This bill would increase this national limit in 2008 to allow for the issuance of an additional $11 billion of tax-exempt bonds to provide loans to first-time home buyers and to finance the construction of low- income rental housing.

The bill would also temporarily allow qualified mortgage revenue bonds to be used to refinance certain subprime loans. Mortgage revenue bonds are a form of tax-exempt bond issued by States to help provide financing to first-time home buyers. These bonds would result in mortgages with lower interest rates than conventional loans, making them more affordable for lower income borrowers.

This bill would encourage the rebuilding of the low-income housing industry with a temporary increase in low-income housing tax credits. The low-income housing tax credit program helps finance the development of affordable rental housing for low-income families. The credit is the largest source of Federal funding for the construction and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing.

Under current law, there is a State-by-State limit on the annual amount of Federal low-income housing tax credits. This limitation is currently set at $2 for each person living in the State. States with small populations are provided with a special set-aside. Our proposal would increase this limitation in 2008 and 2009 by an additional 20 cents for each person residing in the State. And it would increase the small State set-aside by 10 percent.

This low-income housing tax credit enhancement could help to meet the needs of low-income families who have been displaced from their homes by foreclosure. More generally, the credit can assist low-income neighborhoods that have shortages of moderately priced rental housing. It could provide a boost to some distressed communities.

This bill also includes reforms to real estate investment trust, or REITs. REITs can be corporations, trusts, or associations. They invest in real estate. And they elect to be taxed under a special tax regime, instead of under the tax rules for corporations.

REITs are subject to complex rules that can limit the ability of these businesses to adjust to changing market conditions and to manage risk. The bill would liberalize these rules by clarifying that REITs can earn foreign currency income associated with real estate activities. The bill would increase the permissible size of REIT investments in taxable REIT subsidiaries. The bill would modify the REIT safe harbor for dealer sales. And the bill would extend the special rules for lodging facilities to health care facilities.

My colleagues and I have worked long and hard to craft this response to our nation's pressing housing woes in a fiscally responsible way. This bill has achieved bipartisan and administration support. I believe that this bill will strengthen homes at a time when help is needed. The tax provisions work to bring stability to the housing marketplace for every homeowner. I am proud to be a part of this effort.

This bill starts with the American home. It starts with trying to help hardworking American families to stay in their homes. Let's finish this bill and start helping to protect those homes today.

Finally, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rangel and I have asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the public a technical explanation of the bill. The technical explanation expresses the committee's understanding and legislative intent behind this important legislation. It is available on the joint committee's Web site at www.jct.gov.

The provision requires the bank, third party network, or third party processor that settles credit card payments with the merchant to report annually to the IRS and to the merchant the gross amount paid to the merchant during the calendar year. These reports may be made electronically. The effective day of the proposal was modified to apply to information returns for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2010. Back-up withholding provisions apply to amounts paid after December 31, 2011. Back-up withholding is required only if the paying institution does not have a valid taxpayer identification number on file for the merchant. In addition, for third party networks, there is an exception for transactions of $20,000 or less or 200 transactions or less.

The IRS indicates that it intends to implement the information reports in a graduated way that will give the agency time to use the amounts on a 1099 in a manner to accurately and efficiently identify cases with higher likelihood of noncompliance, potentially sparing compliant businesses from unnecessary audits. Existing privacy rules will apply to the information reports required under this proposal.

The provision provides the Secretary of Treasury with the authority to prescribe regulations or other guidance to implement this provision and prevent the reporting of the same transaction more than once.

The benefits of this proposal are substantial. IRS research shows that there is 46 percent compliance rate when there is no information reporting and over 90 percent compliance when there is information reporting. There will be upfront programming costs which will be spread over a number of merchants and a period of years, which should help to minimize the costs to individual merchants.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my friend Senator Crapo to introduce an important piece of legislation that would help to strengthen the financial health of America's firearm and ammunition manufacturers, who in turn support wildlife conservation in America.

The firearm and ammunition industry pays a Federal excise tax of 11 percent on long guns and ammunition and 10 percent on handguns. The Tax and Trade Bureau in the Treasury Department collects this tax. The Bureau sends the proceeds to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where they are deposited into the Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund, also known as the Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund.

The tax is a major source of conservation funding in America. Since 1991, the firearm and ammunition industry has contributed about $3 billion to the Pittman-Robertson Fund.

Of all the industries that pay excise taxes on the sale of their products to support wildlife conservation efforts, firearms and ammunition manufacturers are the only ones that have to pay excise taxes every 2 weeks. Other industries, such as archery and fishing, pay their tax every 3 months.

This frequent payment obligation imposes a costly and inequitable burden on the firearms and ammunition industry. Manufacturers spend thousands of additional man-hours just to administer the paperwork associated with making the bi-weekly excise payments.

According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, changing the deposit schedule from a bi-weekly to quarterly payment would save the industry an estimated $21.6 million dollars a year. That's money that the industry could use for investment in researching and developing new products, purchasing new manufacturing plants and equipment, and communicating with the hunting and shooting sports community.

Let me take a moment to explain what this legislation does not do. It does not reduce the firearm and ammunition industry's excise tax rates. It simply adds fairness to the tax code.

It is important for my Colleagues to understand the history and nature of the firearm and ammunition excise tax. During the Great Depression, hunters and conservationists recognized that overharvesting of wildlife would destroy America's treasured wildlife and natural habitats. Sportsmen, state wildlife agencies, and the firearm and ammunition industries lobbied Congress to extend the existing 10 percent excise tax and impose a new 11 percent excise tax to create a new fund. The fund was called the Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund after Senator Key Pittman of Nevada and Representative A. Willis Robertson of Virginia. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the legislation into law in 1937.

The industry, hunters, and conservationists came together to create this structure. They recognized the importance of conservation. And they encouraged Congress to impose a tax on their guns and ammo. It is a rare thing when taxpayers ask to be taxed. But preserving our country's wildlife habitat was and continues to be that important.

Today, more than $700 million each year is generated and used exclusively to establish, restore, and protect wildlife habitats.

Now let me explain the effect that the bill we are introducing today would have on the Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund. As the Joint Committee on Taxation explained in its revenue estimate, the net budget effect to the fund is $4 million. This is purely a result of the shift in the timing of collections, from bi-weekly to quarterly, over a 10-year budget window. Consumers of firearms and ammunition would still pay the exact same amount of tax.

The firearm and ammunition industry recognizes the 10-year $4 million loss to the trust fund. The industry developed a comprehensive 5-year proposal to ease this effect. Under the proposal, the industry would contribute $150,000 a year for the next 5 years, a total of $750,000, to the fund.

These actions again show the partnership between hunters, conservation groups, and the firearm and ammunition industry to protect conservation programs and initiatives. That is why this legislation is supported by the following groups: Archery Trade Association; Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; Boon and Young; Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation; Delta Waterfowl; Ducks Unlimited; National Rifle Association; National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.; National Wild Turkey Federation; North American Wetlands Conservation Council; Pheasants Forever; Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation; Safari Club International; Wildlife Management Institute; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance.

I urge my Colleagues to support this legislation. I hope that we can come together, just as the industry, hunters, and conservation groups have, to pass this legislation. It's a matter of tax fairness. Let us do our part to correct this inequity in the tax code. Let us do our part to support an American business that in turn supports wildlife habitat restoration and conservation.