Floor Statements

Mr. President, George Bernard Shaw once said: ``If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion.''

Sometimes I feel the same about legislation to extend expiring tax provisions. Sometimes it feels as though that process never reaches a conclusion. Regrettably, Tuesday, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the House-passed renewable energy and tax extenders bill.

Today, we must begin anew the march to a conclusion for the tax extenders package.

Next week, the Senate will face a choice. We'll vote again on getting to the tax extenders bill. We'll vote on allowing the Senate to get to the substitute amendment, the text of which I introduce today. I think that it's a pretty easy choice.

We need to decide whether we will develop new jobs and new medications.

Or, we can continue to allow hedge fund managers to defer, without limitation, their compensation for investing other people's money.

The choice is easy. We must pass this package of expiring provisions. We must reach a conclusion.

Last month, the House passed its renewable energy and tax extenders package, by a vote of 263 to 160. It came over to the Senate last week. My Colleagues on the other side of the aisle objected to moving to the House bill, for which I was prepared to offer a substitute amendment.

Today, I am introducing that substitute amendment as a stand-alone bill. This extender package is fully paid-for. These offsets are fiscally responsible. And these revenue-raising provisions are also sound tax policy.

The first revenue-raising provision is an extension of the effective date of the worldwide allocation of interest. The bill would delay application of the new rule.

This section of the code is scheduled to take effect in 2009.

Many of the companies that will benefit from this provision told me that they would rather have business extenders, including R&D, active financing, and CFC look-through. They prefer those important extenders to a 2009 application of the world wide allocation of interest.

These companies want a conclusion. And, they realize that to get a conclusion, they, along with Congress, must be fiscally responsible and pay for these provisions.

This provision allows Congress to be fiscally responsible and to pay for the priorities of the business community.

The second revenue-raising provision addresses offshore deferred compensation. This provision prevents hedge fund managers from deferring income. This is not an increase in tax on hedge fund managers. Rather, it is a change in the timing of when they have to pay their income tax.

We need to make decisions about our priorities. Is the ability of hedge fund managers to defer taxation of their compensation more important than spurring research and development?

This bill has a solid energy-tax package. It has about $17 billion in incentives for alternative energy, efficiency, and clean coal. This package is important for our environment and energy security. And it's important to facilitate the transition to a carbon-controlled economy.

I have been working to get the Congress to pass a good energy-tax package for the better part of a year. At the beginning of last year, the Finance Committee conducted several hearings. Last June, the Committee marked up a bill to bolster investment in clean energy, efficiency, and clean coal. Our bill--a roughly $30 billion package-- passed the Finance Committee with a 15-to-5 vote.

The bill included a 5-year extension of the credit for production of renewable electricity. That credit enjoys strong bipartisan support.

It included 8-year extensions of credits for solar power. Solar power still needs significant subsidies to compete with fossil-based energy.

It included $4 billion in new funds for clean coal tax credits. These credits are needed to demonstrate that coal--which accounts for half of this Nation's electricity--can be burned cleanly.

The bill included a new consumer credit for plug-in hybrids. Already prototypes of plug-in hybrids can go a hundred miles on a gallon of gas.

The bill included a new credit for cellulosic ethanol. Some experts predict that cellulosic ethanol will become the fuel of the future.

Last June's Finance Committee package was largely financed by reducing tax benefits for oil and gas companies. We proposed repealing the manufacturing deduction for oil and gas firms. That raised about $9.4 billion for the package.

We proposed a tax on production in the Gulf of Mexico, with credit for the tax provided to companies paying royalties on that production. This raised more than $10 billion.

We also proposed tightening the rules on tax credits received by oil and gas companies that pay taxes to overseas jurisdictions. This proposal raised about $3.2 billion.

Taken together, these tax changes would have financed about two- thirds of the roughly $30 billion energy-tax package. We argued that the oil and gas offsets were justified, in part because of record-high oil prices. Recall that in 2005, President Bush said, ``With $55 (a barrel) oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore.''

When the Finance Committee passed this energy-tax bill, oil traded at $69 a barrel.

After moving the bill through the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley and I offered that measure on the Senate floor. We offered it as an amendment to the energy policy bill.

But our amendment got 57 votes on the floor, 3 shy of the 60 votes that we needed to break a filibuster.

The objections, almost entirely from the other side, were that the bill would increase energy prices. They argued that our bill unreasonably targeted the oil and gas industry. They argued that the package was simply too big.

So we went back to the drawing board. In negotiations with the House, we cut the size of the energy package by about a third. We dropped the $10 billion tax on Gulf production. We retained repeal of the manufacturing deduction for large oil and gas firms, and the provision to tighten loopholes on foreign tax credits for oil and gas companies. And we also included nearly $7 billion in offsets from President Bush's own budget proposal.

That's right. About one-third of the package that came to the Senate floor in December was offset by items taken directly from proposals offered by President Bush in his 2008 budget.

Even though we cut the package by about a third, the bill still maintained meaningful support for alternative energy and efficiency. It included extension of the renewable energy production credit. It included long-term extensions of credits for solar power. It included $2 billion for clean-coal projects. And it included a new consumer incentive for plug-in hybrid cars.

It was not as ambitious as the June 2007 Finance Committee bill. But the compromise product that came to the Senate floor in December was a very good package.

Nonetheless, the President issued a veto threat on the bill. And 40 Senators followed his lead. On December 12, 2007, the compromise package failed in the Senate by a vote of 59 to 40, just one shy of 60 needed to break yet another filibuster.

Faced with the choice of maintaining tax breaks for oil and gas companies and investing in a fledgling alternative energy industry, the Senate minority chose to protect the oil and gas companies.

Faced with the choice of investing in green-collar jobs or maintaining the status quo on energy, the minority chose the status quo.

Remember the President's assertion that tax breaks were not needed when oil traded at $55 a barrel? Well, when the Senate voted on the energy package on December 13, 2007, oil cost more than $92 a barrel.

So where are we now? Vital new energy-tax provisions--such as incentives for plug-in hybrid vehicles--have not become law. Existing incentives--such as those for energy-efficient appliances--have lapsed. And in less than 7 months, many others will lapse, including the renewable energy production credit, solar credits, incentives for efficient buildings, and credits for biofuels.

So what do we do about it? To paraphrase Thomas Edison, ``I have not failed. I've just found two ways that won't work.''

I hope that this attempt will work. The bill that I introduce today, and on which I hope the Senate can vote next week, includes a robust energy package. It is very similar to that negotiated with the House last year. It is very similar to the one that got 59 votes in the Senate.

Like last year's bills, this package includes long-term extensions of renewable energy credits. It includes major funding for clean coal projects. It includes a new incentive for plug-in hybrids. And it includes extensions of vital incentives to promote energy efficiency.

This $17 billion energy package is slightly smaller than last December's. But it's still critically important to our Nation's energy future.

There is a key difference between this year's package and last year's: the offsets. In response to criticisms of the oil and gas offsets and the President's veto threat, we have dropped proposals to repeal oil and gas tax breaks.

Instead, we have included two offsets that have nothing to do with oil and gas. In fact, they have nothing to do with energy. They are simply good policy. And they have broad support.

The bill also extends provisions that offer tax benefits to individuals and businesses. One such provision is the teacher expense deduction.

Our schools are in desperate need of repair. Our students don't have the books or supplies they need. Some teachers have taken it upon themselves to use money from their own pockets to provide classroom supplies for their students.

In 2005 alone, more than 3.4 million families took the teacher expense deduction. The average salary for a teacher is about $38,000.

This says a lot about this profession's dedication to educating America's youth. These teachers work diligently to make sure that America stays competitive in this global economy by educating our children. And yet they pay out of their own pockets for supplies. The least we can do is to help share the cost.

Another provision that is important to American families is the qualified tuition deduction. Tuition costs have long been increasing faster than inflation. Parents and students worry about how to cover these escalating costs.

4.4 million families took the qualified tuition deduction in 2005. But the provision expired at the end of 2007.

The bill that I introduce today has other important benefits. Millions of families get tax relief from these expiring provisions and will suffer without this legislation.

Businesses will also suffer if Congress does not act. Many of the business provisions contained in the extenders package are crucial in allowing U.S.-based multinational corporations to compete effectively in a global economy.

America accounts for a third of the world's spending on scientific research and development, ranking first among all countries. This is impressive. But relative to the size of our economy, America is in sixth place. And the trends show that maintaining American leadership in the future depends on increased commitment to research and science.

Asia has recognized this. Spending on research and development has increased by 140 percent in China, Korea, and Taiwan. In America, it has increased by only 34 percent.

Asia's commitment is already paying off. More than a hundred Fortune 500 companies have opened research centers in India and China. I have visited some of them. I was impressed with the level of skill of the workers I met there.

There are workers in other countries who seek coveted research positions. Ireland, Poland, and other European countries would like American corporations to shift their R&D operations to their countries. Some of these countries offer incredible tax and non-tax benefits.

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

We need to pass an extenders package that allows American companies to take the credit as soon as possible.

American businesses need the R&D tax credit to compete in a global economy. The R&D tax credit gives companies an incentive to begin or continue research here in America. These jobs pay well and result in the creation of intellectual property.

We want these jobs. And we want the intellectual property to be created in our country.

American financial services companies successfully compete in world financial markets. We need to make sure, however, that the U.S. tax rules do not change that.

This legislation will extend the active financing exception to Subpart F. This provision preserves the international competitiveness of American-based financial services companies. This provision also contains appropriate safeguards to ensure that only truly active businesses benefit.

The active financing exception applies to active financial service income earned abroad by American financial services companies or American manufacturing firms with a financial services operation. The exception makes sure that this income is not subject to U.S. tax until that income is brought home to the U.S.

This provision will put the American financial services industry on an equal footing with foreign-based competitors who are not taxed on active financial services income.

There are several other provisions in this bill that encourage businesses to invest in this country. There are provisions that will help American businesses compete in a global economy. We must extend these provisions as soon as possible.

Finally, my bill will provide an AMT patch for 2008. The provision is not offset, because we recognize the reality of the budget constraints we face. We need to get this done. This is an important provision to the American families.

The patch will hold the number of people subject to the AMT at 4.2 million. As a result, over 20 million taxpayers will avoid the AMT next year.

The choice is easy. We should continue to support teachers, families and schools. We should continue to support the creation of jobs and intellectual property. That is why I urge my Colleagues to support this fully offset package.

Which is more important, Mr. President? 11 million families who take the state and local tax deduction, or a few hundred hedge fund managers?

Which is more important? 3.5 million teachers who pay out of their pocket for school supplies, or a few hundred hedge fund managers?

4.5 million families who struggle to pay for college tuition, or a few hundred hedge fund managers?

It is time to reach a conclusion. You can lay all the extenders bills end to end. But I submit that the best conclusion is the extenders package that I introduce today and that the Senate will try to get to next week. I urge my Colleagues to support the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed.

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

Mr. President, George Bernard Shaw once said: ``If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion.''

Sometimes I feel the same about legislation to extend expiring tax provisions. Sometimes it feels as though that process never reaches a conclusion. Regrettably, Tuesday, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the House-passed renewable energy and tax extenders bill.

Today, we must begin anew the march to a conclusion for the tax extenders package.

Next week, the Senate will face a choice. We'll vote again on getting to the tax extenders bill. We'll vote on allowing the Senate to get to the substitute amendment, the text of which I introduce today. I think that it's a pretty easy choice.

We need to decide whether we will develop new jobs and new medications.

Or, we can continue to allow hedge fund managers to defer, without limitation, their compensation for investing other people's money.

The choice is easy. We must pass this package of expiring provisions. We must reach a conclusion.

Last month, the House passed its renewable energy and tax extenders package, by a vote of 263 to 160. It came over to the Senate last week. My Colleagues on the other side of the aisle objected to moving to the House bill, for which I was prepared to offer a substitute amendment.

Today, I am introducing that substitute amendment as a stand-alone bill. This extender package is fully paid-for. These offsets are fiscally responsible. And these revenue-raising provisions are also sound tax policy.

The first revenue-raising provision is an extension of the effective date of the worldwide allocation of interest. The bill would delay application of the new rule.

This section of the code is scheduled to take effect in 2009.

Many of the companies that will benefit from this provision told me that they would rather have business extenders, including R&D, active financing, and CFC look-through. They prefer those important extenders to a 2009 application of the world wide allocation of interest.

These companies want a conclusion. And, they realize that to get a conclusion, they, along with Congress, must be fiscally responsible and pay for these provisions.

This provision allows Congress to be fiscally responsible and to pay for the priorities of the business community.

The second revenue-raising provision addresses offshore deferred compensation. This provision prevents hedge fund managers from deferring income. This is not an increase in tax on hedge fund managers. Rather, it is a change in the timing of when they have to pay their income tax.

We need to make decisions about our priorities. Is the ability of hedge fund managers to defer taxation of their compensation more important than spurring research and development?

This bill has a solid energy-tax package. It has about $17 billion in incentives for alternative energy, efficiency, and clean coal. This package is important for our environment and energy security. And it's important to facilitate the transition to a carbon-controlled economy.

I have been working to get the Congress to pass a good energy-tax package for the better part of a year. At the beginning of last year, the Finance Committee conducted several hearings. Last June, the Committee marked up a bill to bolster investment in clean energy, efficiency, and clean coal. Our bill--a roughly $30 billion package-- passed the Finance Committee with a 15-to-5 vote.

The bill included a 5-year extension of the credit for production of renewable electricity. That credit enjoys strong bipartisan support.

It included 8-year extensions of credits for solar power. Solar power still needs significant subsidies to compete with fossil-based energy.

It included $4 billion in new funds for clean coal tax credits. These credits are needed to demonstrate that coal--which accounts for half of this Nation's electricity--can be burned cleanly.

The bill included a new consumer credit for plug-in hybrids. Already prototypes of plug-in hybrids can go a hundred miles on a gallon of gas.

The bill included a new credit for cellulosic ethanol. Some experts predict that cellulosic ethanol will become the fuel of the future.

Last June's Finance Committee package was largely financed by reducing tax benefits for oil and gas companies. We proposed repealing the manufacturing deduction for oil and gas firms. That raised about $9.4 billion for the package.

We proposed a tax on production in the Gulf of Mexico, with credit for the tax provided to companies paying royalties on that production. This raised more than $10 billion.

We also proposed tightening the rules on tax credits received by oil and gas companies that pay taxes to overseas jurisdictions. This proposal raised about $3.2 billion.

Taken together, these tax changes would have financed about two- thirds of the roughly $30 billion energy-tax package. We argued that the oil and gas offsets were justified, in part because of record-high oil prices. Recall that in 2005, President Bush said, ``With $55 (a barrel) oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore.''

When the Finance Committee passed this energy-tax bill, oil traded at $69 a barrel.

After moving the bill through the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley and I offered that measure on the Senate floor. We offered it as an amendment to the energy policy bill.

But our amendment got 57 votes on the floor, 3 shy of the 60 votes that we needed to break a filibuster.

The objections, almost entirely from the other side, were that the bill would increase energy prices. They argued that our bill unreasonably targeted the oil and gas industry. They argued that the package was simply too big.

So we went back to the drawing board. In negotiations with the House, we cut the size of the energy package by about a third. We dropped the $10 billion tax on Gulf production. We retained repeal of the manufacturing deduction for large oil and gas firms, and the provision to tighten loopholes on foreign tax credits for oil and gas companies. And we also included nearly $7 billion in offsets from President Bush's own budget proposal.

That's right. About one-third of the package that came to the Senate floor in December was offset by items taken directly from proposals offered by President Bush in his 2008 budget.

Even though we cut the package by about a third, the bill still maintained meaningful support for alternative energy and efficiency. It included extension of the renewable energy production credit. It included long-term extensions of credits for solar power. It included $2 billion for clean-coal projects. And it included a new consumer incentive for plug-in hybrid cars.

It was not as ambitious as the June 2007 Finance Committee bill. But the compromise product that came to the Senate floor in December was a very good package.

Nonetheless, the President issued a veto threat on the bill. And 40 Senators followed his lead. On December 12, 2007, the compromise package failed in the Senate by a vote of 59 to 40, just one shy of 60 needed to break yet another filibuster.

Faced with the choice of maintaining tax breaks for oil and gas companies and investing in a fledgling alternative energy industry, the Senate minority chose to protect the oil and gas companies.

Faced with the choice of investing in green-collar jobs or maintaining the status quo on energy, the minority chose the status quo.

Remember the President's assertion that tax breaks were not needed when oil traded at $55 a barrel? Well, when the Senate voted on the energy package on December 13, 2007, oil cost more than $92 a barrel.

So where are we now? Vital new energy-tax provisions--such as incentives for plug-in hybrid vehicles--have not become law. Existing incentives--such as those for energy-efficient appliances--have lapsed. And in less than 7 months, many others will lapse, including the renewable energy production credit, solar credits, incentives for efficient buildings, and credits for biofuels.

So what do we do about it? To paraphrase Thomas Edison, ``I have not failed. I've just found two ways that won't work.''

I hope that this attempt will work. The bill that I introduce today, and on which I hope the Senate can vote next week, includes a robust energy package. It is very similar to that negotiated with the House last year. It is very similar to the one that got 59 votes in the Senate.

Like last year's bills, this package includes long-term extensions of renewable energy credits. It includes major funding for clean coal projects. It includes a new incentive for plug-in hybrids. And it includes extensions of vital incentives to promote energy efficiency.

This $17 billion energy package is slightly smaller than last December's. But it's still critically important to our Nation's energy future.

There is a key difference between this year's package and last year's: the offsets. In response to criticisms of the oil and gas offsets and the President's veto threat, we have dropped proposals to repeal oil and gas tax breaks.

Instead, we have included two offsets that have nothing to do with oil and gas. In fact, they have nothing to do with energy. They are simply good policy. And they have broad support.

The bill also extends provisions that offer tax benefits to individuals and businesses. One such provision is the teacher expense deduction.

Our schools are in desperate need of repair. Our students don't have the books or supplies they need. Some teachers have taken it upon themselves to use money from their own pockets to provide classroom supplies for their students.

In 2005 alone, more than 3.4 million families took the teacher expense deduction. The average salary for a teacher is about $38,000.

This says a lot about this profession's dedication to educating America's youth. These teachers work diligently to make sure that America stays competitive in this global economy by educating our children. And yet they pay out of their own pockets for supplies. The least we can do is to help share the cost.

Another provision that is important to American families is the qualified tuition deduction. Tuition costs have long been increasing faster than inflation. Parents and students worry about how to cover these escalating costs.

4.4 million families took the qualified tuition deduction in 2005. But the provision expired at the end of 2007.

The bill that I introduce today has other important benefits. Millions of families get tax relief from these expiring provisions and will suffer without this legislation.

Businesses will also suffer if Congress does not act. Many of the business provisions contained in the extenders package are crucial in allowing U.S.-based multinational corporations to compete effectively in a global economy.

America accounts for a third of the world's spending on scientific research and development, ranking first among all countries. This is impressive. But relative to the size of our economy, America is in sixth place. And the trends show that maintaining American leadership in the future depends on increased commitment to research and science.

Asia has recognized this. Spending on research and development has increased by 140 percent in China, Korea, and Taiwan. In America, it has increased by only 34 percent.

Asia's commitment is already paying off. More than a hundred Fortune 500 companies have opened research centers in India and China. I have visited some of them. I was impressed with the level of skill of the workers I met there.

There are workers in other countries who seek coveted research positions. Ireland, Poland, and other European countries would like American corporations to shift their R&D operations to their countries. Some of these countries offer incredible tax and non-tax benefits.

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

We need to pass an extenders package that allows American companies to take the credit as soon as possible.

American businesses need the R&D tax credit to compete in a global economy. The R&D tax credit gives companies an incentive to begin or continue research here in America. These jobs pay well and result in the creation of intellectual property.

We want these jobs. And we want the intellectual property to be created in our country.

American financial services companies successfully compete in world financial markets. We need to make sure, however, that the U.S. tax rules do not change that.

This legislation will extend the active financing exception to Subpart F. This provision preserves the international competitiveness of American-based financial services companies. This provision also contains appropriate safeguards to ensure that only truly active businesses benefit.

The active financing exception applies to active financial service income earned abroad by American financial services companies or American manufacturing firms with a financial services operation. The exception makes sure that this income is not subject to U.S. tax until that income is brought home to the U.S.

This provision will put the American financial services industry on an equal footing with foreign-based competitors who are not taxed on active financial services income.

There are several other provisions in this bill that encourage businesses to invest in this country. There are provisions that will help American businesses compete in a global economy. We must extend these provisions as soon as possible.

Finally, my bill will provide an AMT patch for 2008. The provision is not offset, because we recognize the reality of the budget constraints we face. We need to get this done. This is an important provision to the American families.

The patch will hold the number of people subject to the AMT at 4.2 million. As a result, over 20 million taxpayers will avoid the AMT next year.

The choice is easy. We should continue to support teachers, families and schools. We should continue to support the creation of jobs and intellectual property. That is why I urge my Colleagues to support this fully offset package.

Which is more important, Mr. President? 11 million families who take the state and local tax deduction, or a few hundred hedge fund managers?

Which is more important? 3.5 million teachers who pay out of their pocket for school supplies, or a few hundred hedge fund managers?

4.5 million families who struggle to pay for college tuition, or a few hundred hedge fund managers?

It is time to reach a conclusion. You can lay all the extenders bills end to end. But I submit that the best conclusion is the extenders package that I introduce today and that the Senate will try to get to next week. I urge my Colleagues to support the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to urge passage of S. 3101, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act.

This is the right bill for America's seniors and the health care providers who treat them. It is a balanced bill, and it enjoys strong bipartisan support.

It hasn't been easy to get to this point. I have engaged in earnest negotiations with Senator Grassley, Minority Leader McConnell, and the administration to reach a compromise on this bill.

After several weeks of talks, it became clear that we would not be able to reach agreement on a bill that is fair to both rural and urban areas, and that balances the need to help America's seniors with the need to address the pending payment cut for Medicare providers.

So I have worked with Democrats and willing Republicans to craft this legislation, the right legislation, and I urge all Senators to enthusiastically support it.

There is urgency in this call for support. We must act now to block the cuts that Medicare's doctors will face on July 1.

This legislation gives doctors a decent, measured increase in reimbursement that doesn't explode costs or excessively raise premiums.

It includes provisions to improve the quality of care that is provided and, as is so urgently needed, increases access to primary care.

It will also save lives and reduce costs by requiring doctors to use e-prescribing by 2011 whenever they give Medicare patients prescriptions.

But the legislation goes further. It also takes care of America's seniors.

First, it expands access to preventive services. Preventive care can identify health problems before they become health catastrophes.

To help beneficiaries identify medical conditions and risk factors early, this bill allows new preventive services to be added to the program, so long as they are recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and are approved through regular regulatory channels.

Second, the bill finally gets rid of the discriminatory copayment rates for seniors with mental illnesses.

Many older Americans experience depression and other mental health problems, but Medicare currently requires a much higher copayment for mental health services.

That copayment is 50 percent, compared to the 20 percent required for physical health care services.

This legislation lowers copayments for seniors' mental health services until they match other copays, making sure that seniors can afford the screening and treatment they need.

The bill also expands the drug benefit's coverage to include benzodiazepines and barbiturates used for epilepsy and mental health treatment.

Third, for low-income seniors this act expands programs that help with their out-of-pocket costs. Medicare pays many health costs for seniors, but some low-income beneficiaries need extra help to afford even basic care.

And although subsidies are available through the Medicare Savings Programs, or MSPs, beneficiaries must prove their assets are low enough to qualify.

The assets test for these programs has not been raised since 1989-- even though the cost of living, and certainly the cost of medical care, have increased astronomically since then.

The bill takes an important step to improve access for these beneficiaries by increasing the level of savings that MSP applicants may have and still qualify for help.

We also discount the value of life insurance policies and financial help from churches or family members from counting against a senior's eligibility for assistance.

Fourth, this bill protects seniors from unscrupulous marketing practices by private health plans.

Countless reports have surfaced about aggressive, fraudulent and even abusive sales and marketing practices used by Medicare Advantage plans, the private plan option in Medicare.

This legislation builds on the CMS-proposed rule to ban abusive marketing of Medicare Advantage and other plans once and for all. Marketing abuses are extensive. This legislation stops that.

The Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act takes important steps to shore up our health care system in rural areas.

It ensures that hospitals in these areas get the resources they need to keep their doors open, and expands access to tele-health services.

It also includes important relief for ambulance providers and physicians serving rural areas.

Pharmacy payments are another area where the legislation makes important improvements.

Pharmacies are an integral part of the health care infrastructure in America.

Prescription drugs play a huge role in medical treatment, and many people see their pharmacists more regularly than their physicians.

Pharmacists are also vital to the ongoing success of the Part D prescription drug benefit.

Changes in this bill, including fairer and more timely payments to those who dispense drugs to our nation's senior citizens, can make the benefit work better for pharmacists, and thereby for seniors.

Furthermore, this act would save valuable Medicare dollars by providing one, fully bundled payment for all end-stage renal disease- related services.

This will improve the quality of care these vulnerable beneficiaries receive by balancing incentives and instituting a rigorous quality improvement program.

And, for the first time, dialysis facilities will receive a permanent, market-based update to their payments each year, to make sure that Medicare payments keep up with their costs.

One of the questions I am asked most about is how this bill would address Medicare Advantage payments.

Federal spending for private Medicare Advantage, MA, benefit plans, including health maintenance organizations, preferred provider organizations, and private fee-for-service plans, has grown rapidly since Congress increased payments for MA in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003.

CBO tells us that the Federal Government will pay these private plans $74 billion in 2008, at a rate 13 percent higher than traditional Medicare fee-for-service providers receive.

In sum, every Medicare beneficiary in the country, regardless of whether they are enrolled in an MA plan or remain in traditional fee for service, will pay $2 extra per month to subsidize these extra payment rates.

Private fee-for-service plans, in particular, get a special deal that costs taxpayers and beneficiaries alike.

The law doesn't require these plans to sign contracts with hospitals or doctors, rather, providers are ``deemed'' part of the network. And plans can pay these providers 100 percent of traditional fee-for- service rates even as they receive 117 percent of that rate in reimbursement from Medicare.

They are also exempt from reporting quality measures that all other plans must report. In other words, they have a good deal. Too good of a deal.

Another, and just as obvious, example of how Medicare pays these plans too much is the double payment for indirect medical education, IME. So-called IME payments are intended to defray the higher patient care costs at facilities with graduate medical education programs.

But these payments are made twice: once to the facility itself, and again to Medicare Advantage plans, with no requirement that plans pass the IME funding along to teaching hospitals.

This bill will save taxpayers $13 billion over 5 years by requiring private-fee-for-service plans to form provider networks and eliminating the double payment for IME to MA plans.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 3 minutes.

It will also require private fee-for-service plans to report on quality measures like other plans are required to do.

Some in the Senate, and many in the Bush administration, oppose any reforms to private fee-for-service plans.

They oppose protecting beneficiaries from private plans' unscrupulous marketing practices.

Just as regretfully, they oppose expanding access that poor seniors have to assistance with their out-of-pocket costs, and to evidence- based preventive services.

So now we in the Congress have a choice. We can protect private health insurance plans. We can leave low-income beneficiaries behind.

We can neglect our obligations to ensure that the Medicare program works for all seniors or we can do the right thing.

We can pass meaningful, bipartisan Medicare legislation that, yes, blocks the cuts to physician payments, which is absolutely crucial, but which does so much more, that brings much-needed relief to rural areas, improves quality, and cuts costs in the appropriate places.

That is what we ought to do. That is what America's seniors deserve.

I urge my colleagues to support passage of this balanced legislation.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute to explain the next vote.

Mr. President, this vote is about jobs, energy, and paying our Nation's bills. There may be times when delay does not have a significant adverse impact. Today is not one of those days.

The bill before us is a good bill. It extends tax cuts that expired last December.

Companies across America are deciding whether to renew research contracts. Energy companies are deciding whether to buy and build wind turbines. These decisions support jobs.

This bill encourages the search for new and clean energy sources. Harnessing power from ocean waves. Capturing carbon emissions.

This bill also extends expiring individual provisions, including the teacher expense deduction and the tuition deduction.

And the bill pays for itself with provisions that are not tax increases. With gasoline topping $4 per gallon, the American people do not want us to delay.

Is the bill perfect? No.

Will the Senate change it? Yes.

Let's get on with making those changes. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to begin debate on this bill.

Mr. President, I have had the privilege of calling Mr. John ``Harp'' Cote of Butte, MT, my friend for nearly 40 years.

In 1973 when I was running for my first congressional seat, not a whole lot of folks knew me from Adam and the only people I was sure would vote for me were my parents. But everywhere I went I heard the same thing: ``Go see Harp.'' So I went.

Harp took his time sizing me up during that first meeting, and I remember vividly the moment when he said those magic words, ``I'm with you.'' I know his support made all the difference. I owe my first political break to Harp Cote, and I don't know if anything I've accomplished since then would have happened if he hadn't been in my corner from the start.

Harp is a pillar in Montana politics and a great American. He's a model citizen and a model father and grandfather. He and his wife, Esther raised 8 children and have 14 grandchildren. From his many successful business ventures to his leadership roles in just about every charitable organization in town--Butte, and indeed Montana, is a better place because of Harp Cote.

Mark Twain once said ``I have found out that there ain't no surer way to find out whether you like people or hate them than to travel with them.'' Well, a couple of years ago, I lead a delegation of Montanans, including Harp, to China and India to see what we could do to create more good-paying jobs and open doors for Montana businesses. After 10 days I can tell you, there is no one I like more than Harp. His familiar smile and easy personality made the trip a great success. And I'm proud of the doors we opened while we were there.

In April, I asked Harp to join me in Washington, DC, to hear Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern address a Joint Meeting of Congress. Each Member of Congress was allowed to bring one guest, and I invited Harp because of his unwavering dedication to Montana.

As a Butte native and proud Irish American, Harp's attendance has allowed him to further the Mining city's deep seeded Irish connections and heritage.

Like most folks in Butte, Harp has Irish blood in his veins, but he is a Montanan through and through. He is dedicated, hard working and one heck of a sportsman. His optimism, resilience and pure grit define Montanans and embody the western spirit.

I am lucky to have him by my side as we work to do what is right for Montana, making sure Big Sky country remains the Last Best Place to live, work and raise a family.

In 2006, Harp was on hand to welcome Irish President Mary McAleese to Butte. McAleese was the first Irish leader to visit the Mining city since 1919. During the visit, McAleese told a crowd: ``You can be assured that Butte matters to us as much as Ireland matters to Butte.''

I would like to echo President McAleese's sentiment.

Harp Cote can be assured that he means as much to Butte, and to Montana, as Montana and Butte mean to him.

As for myself, I know when it's all said and done and I look back on my career and my friends, one thing will be certain--one of the greatest honors of my life is the privilege of calling Harp Cote my friend.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, last Friday a cloture motion was filed on H.R. 6049, the Renewable Energy Job Creation Act of 2008. This bill contains a robust energy package, with about $17 billion in incentives for alternative energy, for efficiency, and for clean coal. This package is important for our environment, for energy security, and to facilitate the transition to a carbon-controlled economy.

It extends expiring individual provisions. These include the teacher expense deduction and the qualified tuition deduction. The bill also extends expiring business provisions. These include the research and development tax credit and the active finance expensing provision. These business provisions help keep America competitive in the global economy. These business provisions help maintain and create jobs. If these individual and business provisions are not extended, millions of families and businesses would have a huge tax increase. This is all paid for with two revenue raisers that no one has a problem with, revenue raisers that are sound tax policy.

Some might argue we should not increase taxes to pay for tax cuts, but these revenue raisers are not tax increases. The first provision is an extension of the effective date of the worldwide allocation of interest, delaying application of that provision. This section of the code is scheduled to take effect for tax years beginning after December 31, 2008. Many of the companies that will benefit from this provision have told me they would rather have business extenders, including R&D, active financing, and CFC look through, in exchange for a delayed application of the worldwide allocation of interest. These companies realize that in order to get extenders done now, they, along with the Congress, must pay for these provisions. These companies have made a choice. I believe it is a sound choice.

The second provision is offshore deferred compensation. This provision prevents hedge fund managers from deferring income. This is not an increase in tax on hedge fund managers; rather, it is a change in the timing of when income tax will be applied. This is a timing issue, not a tax increase, and the proposal is sound tax policy. Some argue we should not pay to extend current tax benefits. This is a new one. When the other side was in the majority, several bills passed extending provisions, and they were paid for.

So this week the Senate is faced with a choice, a choice that, in my opinion, is relatively easy. We need to decide whether we will develop new jobs and new medications or we can continue to allow hedge fund managers to defer without limitation their compensation for investing other people's money. I believe the choice is easy. We must pass this package of expiring provisions.

I also believe the substitute I will offer will include fixing the AMT, taxes American taxpayers would otherwise have to pay--a so-called AMT patch. That prevents Americans from having to increase their tax liability in a way which I think would not be fair. As I said earlier, the extenders package will be paid for. The AMT patch will not be paid for. Why, some might ask. That is basically because I think it is important to recognize the reality that at the end of day, it will not be paid for, so I, therefore, believe it is important to include the AMT patch in something that is going to be fixed. It is not going to be paid for at the end; whereas, other provisions will be. That is the reason for including both in this bill. The extenders paid for, the AMT patch not paid for.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today, the Senate is addressing the most compelling environmental issue of our time--global warming.

President Teddy Roosevelt once said:

I recognize the right and duty of this generation to

develop and use our natural resources, but I do not recognize

the right to waste them, or to rob by wasteful use, the

generations that come after us.

We all have a basic moral duty: a duty to leave this Earth to our children and our grandchildren in as good a shape or better shape than we found it. We should not rob future generations of a healthy climate and all the benefits that come from it. What will history say about us if we rob future generations of the chance to fish in cold water trout streams or see glaciers in Glacier National Park?

By reasserting America's moral leadership and enacting a cap-and- trade program, we can leave a different legacy. We can protect our outdoor heritage, make our economy more competitive, and create more good-paying jobs.

In Montana, we are already transitioning to a new green economy. We have increased our wind-generating capacity more than seventyfold in the last 2 years. The potential for this clean energy is huge. We can replicate this success with solar, clean coal technology, with carbon capture and sequestration, and other clean forms of energy.

We must begin the process of developing the next generation of energy technologies at home. A cap-and-trade program will spur cleaner technologies and create good-paying jobs.

We already know that a cap-and-trade system can work. It is a market- based solution that harnesses the power of America's ingenuity and entrepreneurship.

In the year 1990, I chaired the conference committee that completed the Clean Air Act amendments designed to address acid rain. At the time, there were a lot of gloom-and-doom predictions about the costs that the Clean Air Act amendments would impose on the economy. Certain industry groups claimed that the Clean Air Act amendments would cost industry more than $5 billion every year. The actual cost to industry was less than one-third of that. And the public benefits of cleaner air have amounted to more than $78 billion a year.

A cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases will be much more complicated, clearly. But I am confident that by using a market-based solution, we can stop global warming as well.

We have a moral imperative to act. We have no choice. But we must also work to get the policy right. We have no choice there either. This means designing a cap-and-trade system that stops global warming. But it also means doing it in a way that enhances our economic competitiveness, creates good-paying green jobs, and avoids harm to working families.

Setting the cap determines whether we meet our environmental goals. What we do with the money the cap-and-trade program raises will determine whether we enhance our American competitiveness and help working families.

By establishing a cap-and-trade system, we are creating a market for greenhouse gas emissions. Under the cap-and-trade system, emitting greenhouse gases will come at a price. Allowances will govern the right to emit greenhouse gases. The bill before us gives away some of the allowances but auctions others in an auction system. The bill auctions fewer allowances in the earlier years and more in the later years of the program, through the year 2050.

The auctioning of these allowances will generate receipts. According to the Congressional Budget Office, enacting this substitute will generate an additional $902 billion in receipts over the next 10 years--close to $1 trillion.

The bill we are considering allocates the money generated from the auction through a variety of trust funds. There are 15 of them in all. They are directed toward different needs anticipated from dealing with global warming. For example, the bill sets aside funding for such things as wildlife adaptation, creation of a new worker training program, and energy technology.

All of these are worthy causes. But are they the best way to use the receipts in order to increase our competitiveness and help working families? Should we auction all of the allowances, more of the allowances, or fewer? Rather than spending the receipts through the various trust funds, should we return more of the money to the people in tax cuts?

This bill also safeguards American economic competitiveness by requiring importers to buy carbon allowances for products imported from countries that have not made commitments to reduce greenhouse gases. This requirement can serve as an effective incentive for other countries, particularly the rapidly developing economies in China, India, and Brazil to join us in the fight against global warming.

Of course, our trading partners will watch closely any proposal that imposes an assessment on imports. It is important we adopt such measures in a manner that respects international trade rules. The proposal before us has been carefully crafted to take these rules into account.

As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I supported the Lieberman-Warner bill in both the subcommittee and full committee. I believed it was very important to move forward on global warming.

As chairman of the Finance Committee, I have additional responsibilities. Those include directing the revenues generated by the Federal Government, overseeing U.S. trade policy, and helping those displaced by trade to retool and retrain. The bill before us today involves these and many other matters. This is a complex and challenging issue involving many committees within the Congress.

We in the Senate have finally woken up to the moral imperative of addressing global warming. Now we must acknowledge the imperative to get the policy right. I applaud Senator Lieberman, Senator Warner, and Senator Boxer for bringing this issue before the Senate so we can begin to debate and improve the policy.

I want to continue to work with my colleagues to get it right, as chairman of the Finance Committee, as a member of the EPW Committee, and as a Montanan and a concerned American. We owe it to our children to act and to get it right.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, an Iraq veteran named Travis Williams told his story at a field hearing in Great Falls, Montana last summer. After graduating from Capitol High School in Helena in 2002, Travis quickly joined the Marine Corps. Travis was deployed to Iraq in 2005. He served in Al Anbar province.

Like thousands of other American men and women in uniform, Travis served nobly and with honor under the most difficult of circumstances. He experienced the horrors of combat. He lost numerous friends. And he saw unspeakable violence.

Travis testified that after months of combat, his emotions seemed to dull or shutdown. As he later learned, he was experiencing a normal reaction to a highly abnormal situation. His reaction was a defense mechanism that allowed him to continue to operate in a combat zone. His mind was finding a way to keep going. Thousands of marines, soldiers, airmen and seamen have experienced this phenomenon.

Travis testified that when he arrived home it seemed ``surreal.'' He felt more out of place in his own home than he did in Iraq. Travis isolated himself from his friends. He was frequently drunk and angry. Looking back, he understands that he was on what he called the ``path to destruction.''

One day, Travis received a phone call from Deb McBee. Deb is a veteran's service officer from the Military Order of the Purple Heart. Deb had heard about Travis' experiences in combat. She recommended that he visit the VA clinic to seek help. Travis took her advice. The VA referred Travis to a veteran's liaison for the Western Montana Mental Health Clinic.

Travis connected immediately with his mental health counselor. The counselor was also a veteran who understood the nightmare of combat and the loneliness of coming home. Over time, the counselor helped Travis to get back on track. Before long, Travis was enrolled in a pre-med program and had overcome many of the feelings of anger and loss he had felt before.

I begin with Travis' story because it offers hope. But it offers hope amid a very dark picture facing our veterans. A recent study by the RAND Corporation revealed that American veterans are facing a crisis of epic proportions. RAND estimates that around 300,000 service members suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder--also known as PTSD--or major depression. And 320,000 individuals reported experiencing probable traumatic brain injury during deployment.

The RAND study found that only 53 percent of service members with post-traumatic stress disorder or depression have seen a doctor or mental health provider in the past year. Of those who had a mental disorder and sought care, about half received only ``minimally adequate'' treatment.

Tragically, on any single day, on average, 18 veterans commit suicide. More than one out of five of those vets were patients undergoing treatment by the VA. Think of it: Today, 18 veterans are liable to commit suicide.

The VA has responded to this crisis with numerous initiatives that offer hope to thousands of veterans. This year, the VA will spend more than $3.5 billion for mental health services. Some of these funds will be invested in a new mental health inpatient ward in Helena, Montana. Over the last several years, the VA has opened up hundreds of new rural health clinics. Today, there are more than 700 of these clinics providing health care to our Nation's veterans. Montana has recently received two new rural health clinics in Lewistown and Cut Bank. The VA is making great strides.

But we need to do more. Thousands of veterans still remain out of reach.

The VA has undertaken an aggressive campaign to make mental health care services available to veterans living in rural areas. But thousands of Americans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan live hundreds of miles away from the health care that they need.

The Veteran's Affairs Office of Policy Analysis and Forecasting counts 118,685 registered highly-rural veterans in America. Of these, only 39,158 live within 2 hours of a VA medical center. Thousands of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan often have to choose between a day-long trip to the VA or no care at all. In my home state of Montana 32,404 rural veterans are enrolled in the VA healthcare system. Over 10,000 of those veterans must drive more than an hour and a half to reach a VA hospital. And thousands of those veterans must drive over two hours both ways. In times of crisis, two hours is much too far to drive.

Research conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs shows that veterans residing in rural areas are in poorer health than their urban counterparts. Nationwide, one out of every five veterans enrolled in VA health care lives in a rural area. Providing quality health care in a rural setting has proved to be a daunting challenge. Limited numbers of doctors and long highways make inadequate access to care all too common.

But let me return to Travis Williams' story. The key lesson of Travis' story is that getting the right care to veterans is all about teamwork. It wasn't just the VA that saved Travis. It wasn't just professional mental health counselors alone. It wasn't just veterans' service organizations. Travis' willpower alone was not sufficient to get him through the hard times. It was all of those things. All of those factors working together helped Travis to get away from a life of anger and despair, and back to a life full of meaning and purpose.

Teamwork is what the Relief for Rural Veterans Act is all about. The bill would enable small rural hospitals, mental health service providers, and other rural providers to work together to respond to the needs of veterans in crisis. States could apply for funding to increase their capacity to deliver mental health services by using state-of-the- art technology such as tele-health and tele-psychiatry.

More specifically, my bill will give the Secretary of Health and Human Services authority to award grants under the Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program. The Medicare Flex Program has a successful 10-year history of strengthening the rural healthcare infrastructure. Under this new authority, States can apply for grants to increase the capacity of rural providers to provide mental health services to veterans and other rural residents. The bill would authorize an additional $100 million for this new authority for 2 years.

The Medicare Flex Program is a good way to improve health care services in rural America. It has provided grants to States to develop State rural health care plans. It supports conversion of eligible small rural hospital facilities to critical access status. It supports rural emergency medical services. And it fosters rural health care network development. It makes sense to expand this program to include mental health services needed by veterans in crisis.

Research conducted by the University of Maine found that small rural hospitals are playing a major role in providing emergency health care services to veterans. They are filling a critical gap in caring for veterans in crisis.

But the Federal Government has not thus far provided funds to help rural hospitals to perform this task. The grants authorized in my bill could support crisis intervention services and other health care services needed by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. My bill will focus upon those veterans who live far from VA facilities. It could provide relief for veterans who have to drive hours to receive emergency mental health care.

An additional benefit of these grants is that all rural residents, regardless of whether they are veterans or not, would be able to take advantage of the increased capacity of their small rural hospitals to deliver improved healthcare services.

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and the National Alliance on Mental Health Care have endorsed this bill.

The RAND study I mentioned earlier concluded that we need a major national effort to improve the capacity of the mental health system to care for veterans. The report stated that the effort must include the military, veterans, and civilian healthcare systems.

This bill is one answer to that call. This bill is a way to approach the problems facing our veterans from a new perspective. The philosophy behind the bill is that all agencies that can lend a hand to our veterans should do so. The challenges facing our Nation's veterans are too large for the VA to handle on its own.

Researchers estimate that PTSD and depression among returning service members will cost the Nation as much as $6.2 billion in the 2 years following deployment. That's an amount that includes both direct medical care and costs for lost productivity and suicide. Investing in more high-quality treatment could save close to $2 billion within 2 years by substantially reducing those indirect costs.

Last month, Chairman Bob Filner said this about the crisis facing our veterans: This is not a crisis that only concerns numbers. This is a matter of life and death for the veterans for whom we are responsible.

I urge the VA to continue its efforts to extend its reach into rural areas. I applaud the nation's thousands of volunteers who serve our Nations' veterans. And I offer this legislation as one way to begin a new approach to help those who have sacrificed so much in the name of duty, honor, and country.

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

Mr. President, an Iraq veteran named Travis Williams told his story at a field hearing in Great Falls, Montana last summer. After graduating from Capitol High School in Helena in 2002, Travis quickly joined the Marine Corps. Travis was deployed to Iraq in 2005. He served in Al Anbar province.

Like thousands of other American men and women in uniform, Travis served nobly and with honor under the most difficult of circumstances. He experienced the horrors of combat. He lost numerous friends. And he saw unspeakable violence.

Travis testified that after months of combat, his emotions seemed to dull or shutdown. As he later learned, he was experiencing a normal reaction to a highly abnormal situation. His reaction was a defense mechanism that allowed him to continue to operate in a combat zone. His mind was finding a way to keep going. Thousands of marines, soldiers, airmen and seamen have experienced this phenomenon.

Travis testified that when he arrived home it seemed ``surreal.'' He felt more out of place in his own home than he did in Iraq. Travis isolated himself from his friends. He was frequently drunk and angry. Looking back, he understands that he was on what he called the ``path to destruction.''

One day, Travis received a phone call from Deb McBee. Deb is a veteran's service officer from the Military Order of the Purple Heart. Deb had heard about Travis' experiences in combat. She recommended that he visit the VA clinic to seek help. Travis took her advice. The VA referred Travis to a veteran's liaison for the Western Montana Mental Health Clinic.

Travis connected immediately with his mental health counselor. The counselor was also a veteran who understood the nightmare of combat and the loneliness of coming home. Over time, the counselor helped Travis to get back on track. Before long, Travis was enrolled in a pre-med program and had overcome many of the feelings of anger and loss he had felt before.

I begin with Travis' story because it offers hope. But it offers hope amid a very dark picture facing our veterans. A recent study by the RAND Corporation revealed that American veterans are facing a crisis of epic proportions. RAND estimates that around 300,000 service members suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder--also known as PTSD--or major depression. And 320,000 individuals reported experiencing probable traumatic brain injury during deployment.

The RAND study found that only 53 percent of service members with post-traumatic stress disorder or depression have seen a doctor or mental health provider in the past year. Of those who had a mental disorder and sought care, about half received only ``minimally adequate'' treatment.

Tragically, on any single day, on average, 18 veterans commit suicide. More than one out of five of those vets were patients undergoing treatment by the VA. Think of it: Today, 18 veterans are liable to commit suicide.

The VA has responded to this crisis with numerous initiatives that offer hope to thousands of veterans. This year, the VA will spend more than $3.5 billion for mental health services. Some of these funds will be invested in a new mental health inpatient ward in Helena, Montana. Over the last several years, the VA has opened up hundreds of new rural health clinics. Today, there are more than 700 of these clinics providing health care to our Nation's veterans. Montana has recently received two new rural health clinics in Lewistown and Cut Bank. The VA is making great strides.

But we need to do more. Thousands of veterans still remain out of reach.

The VA has undertaken an aggressive campaign to make mental health care services available to veterans living in rural areas. But thousands of Americans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan live hundreds of miles away from the health care that they need.

The Veteran's Affairs Office of Policy Analysis and Forecasting counts 118,685 registered highly-rural veterans in America. Of these, only 39,158 live within 2 hours of a VA medical center. Thousands of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan often have to choose between a day-long trip to the VA or no care at all. In my home state of Montana 32,404 rural veterans are enrolled in the VA healthcare system. Over 10,000 of those veterans must drive more than an hour and a half to reach a VA hospital. And thousands of those veterans must drive over two hours both ways. In times of crisis, two hours is much too far to drive.

Research conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs shows that veterans residing in rural areas are in poorer health than their urban counterparts. Nationwide, one out of every five veterans enrolled in VA health care lives in a rural area. Providing quality health care in a rural setting has proved to be a daunting challenge. Limited numbers of doctors and long highways make inadequate access to care all too common.

But let me return to Travis Williams' story. The key lesson of Travis' story is that getting the right care to veterans is all about teamwork. It wasn't just the VA that saved Travis. It wasn't just professional mental health counselors alone. It wasn't just veterans' service organizations. Travis' willpower alone was not sufficient to get him through the hard times. It was all of those things. All of those factors working together helped Travis to get away from a life of anger and despair, and back to a life full of meaning and purpose.

Teamwork is what the Relief for Rural Veterans Act is all about. The bill would enable small rural hospitals, mental health service providers, and other rural providers to work together to respond to the needs of veterans in crisis. States could apply for funding to increase their capacity to deliver mental health services by using state-of-the- art technology such as tele-health and tele-psychiatry.

More specifically, my bill will give the Secretary of Health and Human Services authority to award grants under the Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program. The Medicare Flex Program has a successful 10-year history of strengthening the rural healthcare infrastructure. Under this new authority, States can apply for grants to increase the capacity of rural providers to provide mental health services to veterans and other rural residents. The bill would authorize an additional $100 million for this new authority for 2 years.

The Medicare Flex Program is a good way to improve health care services in rural America. It has provided grants to States to develop State rural health care plans. It supports conversion of eligible small rural hospital facilities to critical access status. It supports rural emergency medical services. And it fosters rural health care network development. It makes sense to expand this program to include mental health services needed by veterans in crisis.

Research conducted by the University of Maine found that small rural hospitals are playing a major role in providing emergency health care services to veterans. They are filling a critical gap in caring for veterans in crisis.

But the Federal Government has not thus far provided funds to help rural hospitals to perform this task. The grants authorized in my bill could support crisis intervention services and other health care services needed by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. My bill will focus upon those veterans who live far from VA facilities. It could provide relief for veterans who have to drive hours to receive emergency mental health care.

An additional benefit of these grants is that all rural residents, regardless of whether they are veterans or not, would be able to take advantage of the increased capacity of their small rural hospitals to deliver improved healthcare services.

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and the National Alliance on Mental Health Care have endorsed this bill.

The RAND study I mentioned earlier concluded that we need a major national effort to improve the capacity of the mental health system to care for veterans. The report stated that the effort must include the military, veterans, and civilian healthcare systems.

This bill is one answer to that call. This bill is a way to approach the problems facing our veterans from a new perspective. The philosophy behind the bill is that all agencies that can lend a hand to our veterans should do so. The challenges facing our Nation's veterans are too large for the VA to handle on its own.

Researchers estimate that PTSD and depression among returning service members will cost the Nation as much as $6.2 billion in the 2 years following deployment. That's an amount that includes both direct medical care and costs for lost productivity and suicide. Investing in more high-quality treatment could save close to $2 billion within 2 years by substantially reducing those indirect costs.

Last month, Chairman Bob Filner said this about the crisis facing our veterans: This is not a crisis that only concerns numbers. This is a matter of life and death for the veterans for whom we are responsible.

I urge the VA to continue its efforts to extend its reach into rural areas. I applaud the nation's thousands of volunteers who serve our Nations' veterans. And I offer this legislation as one way to begin a new approach to help those who have sacrificed so much in the name of duty, honor, and country.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Matt Smith, an intern on the staff of the Finance Committee, and Bruce Fergusson, a fellow in my Senate office, be allowed on the Senate floor for the duration of the debate on the climate change bill.

Mr. President, the amendment I am filing to S. 3036, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008, is aimed at preserving the legislative process. With an issue as complex and wide-ranging as climate change, there are several committees within the Senate that not only have an interest but a responsibility to deal with some aspects of the cap-and-trade system we develop. This amendment will assure that the appropriate committees of the Congress will have the opportunity to consider those aspects of a cap-and-trade proposal within their jurisdiction.

Mr. President, the amendment I am filing to S. 3036, the Lieberman- Warner Climate Security Act of 2008, is designed to use the revenues generated from the auctioning of the greenhouse gas allowances for tax relief.

A cap-and-trade system proposed in this legislation will generate billions of dollars. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Boxer substitute will generate $902 billion in revenues during the initial 10 years of the program.

As chairman of the Finance Committee, I have a responsibility to direct Federal revenues to the purposes that the committee, initially, and the Senate, ultimately, consider in the best interest of the country.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6081, which was received from the House.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on Memorial Day in 1884, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said:

It is now the moment when by common consent we pause to

become conscious of our national life and to rejoice in it,

to recall what our country has done for each of us, and to

ask ourselves what we can do for our country in return.

I am pleased that today, on the eve of the Memorial Day weekend, the Senate has been able to recall what our service men and women have done for each of us. I am pleased that we can do something for them in return. And I am pleased that we have been able to pass the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008.

Nearly 1.5 million American service men and women have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, or both. Nearly 30,000

troops have been wounded in action there.

It is time that Congress showed its gratitude to these brave men and women. They have devoted their lives to the pursuit of American freedom.

Today, we are doing just that. We have passed a bill that offers tax relief to these men and women who serve our country so valiantly.

During a trip to Iraq last year, I saw the amazing job that our troops are doing. I met many Montanans from small towns such as Roundup and Townsend.

I saw firsthand what a heavy burden our troops bear for all of us. They face hardships and danger. But they keep at it every day.

This bill makes permanent the special tax rules that make sense for our military. Many of these rules expired at the end of 2007.

For example, most troops doing the heavy lifting in combat situations are lower ranking soldiers in the lower income brackets. Some of them are earning combat pay at levels that would qualify for the earned income tax credit. But under current law, combat pay does not count toward computing the EITC.

Congress fixed that temporarily. But the provision that fixed the problem expired at the end of 2007.

The EITC is a beneficial tax provision for working Americans. It makes no sense to deny it to our troops.

Today, we have made combat duty income count for EITC purposes, and we have made that change a permanent part of the Tax Code.

This military tax package also eliminates obstacles in the current tax laws that create problems for some veterans and service members.

For example, family members of fallen soldiers killed in the line of duty receive a death gratuity benefit of $100,000. But the tax law does not allow the survivors to put this benefit into a Roth IRA. This bill will guarantee that the family members of fallen soldiers may take advantage of these tax-favored accounts.

Another problem for our disabled veterans is the time limit for filing to get a tax refund. Most VA disability claims filed by veterans are quickly resolved. But many disability awards are delayed because of lost paperwork or the appeals of rejected claims. Once a disabled vet finally gets a favorable award, the disability award is tax-free.

In many cases, however, these disabled veterans paid taxes on the payments in the past. The veterans cannot get the taxes paid back because the law bars them from filing a claim for a tax refund that goes back far enough.

We take care of this problem by giving disabled veterans an extra year to claim their tax refunds.

This bill is paid for by requiring that companies that do business with the Federal Government pay their employment taxes. The bill makes sure that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent companies that have contracts with the Federal Government pay employment taxes for their employees.

Another offset in the bill is a provision that makes certain that individuals who relinquish their American citizenship or long-term residency pay their fair share of Federal taxes. This provision ensures that these folks pay the same tax for appreciation of assets, such as stocks or bonds, as they would pay if they sold them as U.S. citizens or residents.

We owe the men and women fighting in our armed forces an enormous debt of gratitude. They leave their families and put their lives on the line to fight for our freedoms.

And so today, the Senate pauses to recall what our service men and women have done for each of us. Today, the Senate pauses to ask ourselves what we can do for them in return. And today, the Senate pauses to say thank you.