Floor Statements

Mr. President, this budget resolution conference report allows Congress to take action on many of America's priorities.

This conference report starts by providing for many priorities through the revenue side of the budget.

This agreement includes monies to pay for extending expired and expiring revenue provisions.

These provisions include the teacher expense deduction, which helps teachers who buy school supplies.

These provisions include school construction bonds, to help repair our country's deteriorating school infrastructure.

And these provisions include help to businesses to stay competitive. In particular, the budget assumes extending the research and development credit, which gives businesses an incentive to increase research. This will keep America as a top innovator in science and technology.

This conference agreement on the budget resolution also includes monies to provide for education tax reform. So far this year, the Finance Committee has held two tax reform hearings. One of the major themes of the testimony has been simplification.

Witnesses almost always cite education tax incentives as an example of needless complexity. This conference report would allow us to help make education more accessible and affordable by making the education incentives easier to use.

The agreement also includes my amendment that was successfully added to the budget resolution on the Senate floor.

My amendment took the surpluses in the budget resolution and gave them back to the hard-working American families who earned them.

My amendment provided for some important priorities so that the business of America's families can be taken care of.

First, my amendment provided for permanence of the 10-percent tax bracket. That is an across-the-board tax cut for every taxpayer.

Second, my amendment provided for making permanent the changes to the child tax credit. That is a $1,000 tax credit per child. This tax credit recognizes that a family's ability to pay taxes decreases as the family size increases. Unless we act, the child tax credit will fall to $500 per child in 2010.

Third, my amendment provided for making permanent marriage penalty relief. This relief makes sure that a married couple filing a joint return has the same deductions and tax brackets as they would if they filed separately as individuals.

Fourth, my amendment provided for making permanent the increased dependent care credit and changes to the adoption credit.

Fifth, my amendment provided for tax provisions to help military families. And I am pleased to say that these are very close to being adopted by the Congress. This shows that Congress values the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform make for us every day.

Nearly 1\1/2\ million American service men and women have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, or both. Nearly 30,000 troops have been wounded in action.

Congress is about to show our support for our service men and women by making the Tax Code a little more troop-friendly.

We will extend the special tax rules that make sense for our military that expire in 2007 and 2008.

We can eliminate roadblocks in the current tax laws that present difficulties to veterans and servicemembers.

One of these roadblocks is how the Tax Code treats survivors of our fallen heroes. The families of soldiers killed in the line of duty receive a death gratuity benefit of $100,000.

The Tax Code restricts the survivors from putting this benefit into a Roth IRA. We are about to make sure that the family members of fallen soldiers can take advantage of these tax-favored accounts.

Another roadblock in the tax laws impedes our disabled veterans. I am talking about the time limit for filing for a tax refund. Most VA disability claims filed by veterans are quickly resolved. But many disability awards are delayed due to lost paperwork or the appeals of rejected claims.

Once a disabled vet finally gets a favorable award, the good news is that the disability award is tax-free. The bad news is that many of these disabled veterans get ambushed by a statute that bars them from filing a tax refund claim. We are about to give disabled veterans an extra year to claim their tax refunds.

Most troops doing the heavy lifting in combat situations are the lower ranking, lower income soldiers. Their income needs to count towards computing the earned-income tax credit, or EITC. Under current law, however, income earned by a soldier in a combat zone is exempt from income tax. This actually hurts low-income military personnel under the EITC.

The EITC combat-pay exception allows combat zone pay to count as earned income for purposes of determining the credit. That way, more soldiers qualify for the EITC. But this EITC combat-pay exception expires at the end of 2007.

We are about to make this provision permanent.

The budget resolution conference report also provides for some certainty to American families on the estate tax.

Lowering the estate tax to 2009 levels is the least that we can do as estate tax reform.

I am pleased that the conference report recommends appropriations of $240 million more than the President requested for the administrative costs for the Social Security Administration for fiscal year 2009.

These funds are badly needed to reduce the enormous waiting times that many applicants for Social Security disability benefits must wait before their claims are finally approved. Funds are also badly needed to improve the low levels of service to the public in SSA's local field offices.

I am pleased to see that the resolution captures Democratic health care priorities and provides economic relief

for families. It provides funding for maternal and child health; nutrition assistance for women, infants, and children or WIC; and the Social Services block grant. And the resolution accommodates legislation to modernize the unemployment insurance program.

The resolution retains the reserve funds passed in the Senate to reauthorize CHIP and expand coverage to eligible but unenrolled kids. This is a personal priority for me.

The budget also works to protect seniors from unscrupulous marketing of Medicare drug plans, thereby laying the groundwork for a strong Medicare bill currently under negotiation.

The resolution also provides for important improvements to Medicare, such as promoting the use of Health IT.

And it would set up a ``comparative effectiveness'' reserve fund to help us learn what treatments work best and most efficiently to keep Americans healthy. I am working with Chairman Conrad to introduce legislation on this topic this year.

All of these investments take steps toward addressing the underlying growth in health care costs.

The resolution is also tough on government waste, fraud, and abuse and includes important program integrity initiatives to crack down on wasteful or fraudulent spending in the Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Unemployment Insurance Programs.

This budget resolution also accounts for important international trade priorities under the Finance Committee's jurisdiction. The resolution establishes a reserve fund for trade adjustment assistance and a separate reserve fund for other trade initiatives. These reserve funds will allow the Finance Committee to realize legislation to reauthorize trade adjustment assistance, as well as pursue legislation to extend trade preferences, reauthorize customs functions, and implement bilateral trade agreements.

Mr. President, I am thus pleased that this budget resolution conference report allows Congress to take action on these important priorities. I look forward to working with my colleagues to implement the improvements contemplated in the resolution. And I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.

First, I deeply thank my good friend from Iowa, Mr. Harkin. It has been a wonderful experience working the conference on the farm bill where everybody worked together--both sides of the aisle--and, frankly, both bodies. Basically, there were eight members of the conference, led by Senator Harkin and Senator Chambliss, who were also invaluable. All of the core members of the conference could go on and on about how great everybody was to work with. I have not experienced anything like this before.

Mr. President, I am glad the Senate debated the farm bill. I am proud we will pass a strong farm bill. This farm bill is very important to my home State of Montana and for farmers and ranchers across America.

But too few Americans realize how important America's farmers and ranchers are to the economy and the security of this country.

As we finish debate on the farm bill I want to take the opportunity to discuss how important a robust American agriculture sector is.

I also want to address some of the criticisms aimed at America's farmers and ranchers.

Over the last few years, major newspapers and Washington special interest groups have been busy demeaning our Nation's farmers and ranchers.

The articles come with some pejorative titles, such as ``High Plains Grifters,'' ``Farmers at the Trough,'' and ``Hungry Kids, Greedy Farmers.''

These attacks are disappointing to many of us who have worked hard over the years to enact successful, supportive agriculture policy.

But there is a wide gulf between the claims being made in these articles and the reality of what is going on in farm and ranch country.

The articles waver between portraying farmers and ranchers in completely opposite ways. Either the corporate businessman leaching off the Government dole or or the hayseed farmer unable to compete in the market economy without a handout.

Either the corporate businessman leaching off the Government dole or the hayseed farmer unable to compete in the market economy without a handout.

These portrayals are disappointing to me and disheartening to rural America. And they are false.

I know that in this high-tech age it is tempting to downplay the importance of those who put food on our table and clothes on our back. But the better part of history would teach us to avoid the temptation.

The portrayals also inaccurately depict the agriculture economy while entirely missing the underlying problems that plague farmers and ranchers.

One common attack on U.S. farm policy is that it is no longer for the family farm and ranch, but rather has become corporate welfare.

But even the most basic of research quickly uncovers that today nearly all

producers in America remain family farms and ranches not corporations and conglomerates. In fact, only 2.2 percent of farms are nonfamily farms.

Negative articles frequently refer to ``protectionist'' policies intended to shield farmers and ranchers from competition and to raise consumer prices.

One group recently stated that we should simply ignore all the subsidies and trade barriers of other countries. Unilaterally disarm our own farmers and ranchers. And then sit back and enjoy the benefits of cheaper imported food.

This makes zero sense. American consumers today spend a lower percentage of their disposable income on food than consumers anywhere else around the world. In fact, American families are the only families in the world who spend less than 10 percent of their disposable income on food.

Agriculture is also important to our economy, as became apparent earlier this decade when farmers and ranchers helped get the country through a manufacturing crisis.

Our farmers and ranchers managed this even as the average foreign tariff rate on agriculture products was and remains about 62 percent, while the United States average tariff is only around 12 percent.

President John F. Kennedy once said ``the Farmer is the only man in our economy who buys everything at retail, sells everything he sells at wholesale, and pays the freight both ways.'' That is true.

Farmers and ranchers are--and in my memory always have been--in the middle of a never-ending cost squeeze. For too many years we have asked our farmers and ranchers to do more and more and always with less.

So while all the negative news articles focus on the symptoms, they never seem to get around to identifying and discussing the real problems that plague our farmers and ranchers: skyrocketing costs and stagnant returns.

The next generation of farmers and ranchers, growing up all across rural America, has a more accurate view of what farming and ranching life is really about than do urban newspapers and think tanks.

They see long days in the fields, unpredictability caused by droughts, hail storms, hurricanes and floods and a low payoff at the end of the day. Too frequently, they decide it is not worth the effort to come back to the family farm.

That is one reason I was proud to champion the dependable, reliable disaster program that is included in the farm bill. It is wrong when our farmers and ranchers are forced to wait up to 3 years for a disaster payment. We can do better for our farmers, and we can do better for our taxpayers.

Farmers deserve a program and provides dependable, equitable relief when disaster strikes. Taxpayers deserve a program that requires farmers to manage their risk through crop insurance. We have done both.

As we finish debate on this farm bill, I am proud to say that my goal has been, and will always be, to increase the net income of America's farmers and ranchers. I want a strong agricultural economy in this country. I want a strong, homegrown source of safe, affordable, and abundant food and fiber.

I believe this farm bill will strengthen our farm economy. I want to mention a couple provisions in the farm bill that will increase producer's bottom line as well as strengthen rural America's Main Streets.

One of the biggest reforms in this farm bill is the country-of-origin labeling compromise. The conference report simplifies COOL and makes it workable for both our ranchers and our packers. These changes are a major step forward and will help as we undergo the transition this fall to mandatory COOL. I call this COOL reform.

Another major reform we have fought for since the 1990s is allowing interstate shipment of State-inspected meat. There is no reason our smaller packers should not be able to sell their meat out of State. Now, nearly 20 years later. This farm bill establishes a program that allows smaller, State-inspected packers to market their high quality meat nationwide. This is a huge win for ranchers, packers and rural America.

Whether it's a dependable disaster program, COOL reform, interstate shipment, a $10 billion bump to our nutrition programs, or a $4 billion increase to our working-land conservation programs, there is a lot to be proud of in this farm bill.

While the urban media creates visions of agriculture producers lining up for Government payments, I am more worried about our next generation of producers lining up to leave those family farms and ranches. It's so hard and such a tough life.

The great irony in the debate that swirls around U.S. farm policy today is that it is getting so much criticism from so many different quarters and yet it remains one of the truly great success stories in the world.

As with anything else, there is always room for improvement. And I believe we have made improvements in this farm bill. But, every now and again, especially in an age of such cynicism, I know my Montana farmers and ranchers would like to open their papers, turn on their televisions or radios, and just hear a simple thank you.

We really appreciate what you do to keep us clothed and fed like nobody else in the world has ever been before.

Mr. President, Emerson wrote:

What is a farm but a mute gospel? The chaff and the wheat,

weeds and plants, blight, rain, insects, sun--it is a sacred

emblem from the first furrow of spring to the last stack

which the snow of winter overtakes in the fields.

The farm bill conference report before us today is a tribute to that sacred emblem, that mute gospel, the farm. This bill will help to address some of the challenges facing the farmer and rural America.

The conference report provides permanent disaster assistance for farmers and ranchers. And the conference report also includes farm tax reforms that fund farm tax relief as well as agricultural and trade measures.

The tax package in the conference report will help farmers to preserve land and to protect endangered species. It will provide tax relief for farmers and ranchers, and it will help America find homegrown energy independence.

The trade-related measures in the conference report accomplish a number of vital purposes for this agriculture legislation. Trade provisions help to fund the farm bill's provisions. And trade provisions level the trade playing field for softwood lumber producers.

The new program in this conference report for relief from agricultural disasters is a notable achievement. Currently, Congress addresses agricultural disasters through ad hoc bills. Ad hoc disaster bills are not dependable. They are never timely. And they are often unfair.

After a disaster strikes, farmers and ranchers often have to wait years to receive disaster assistance. We need a permanent disaster relief program for our farmers and ranchers. We need a program that is dependable, timely, and equitable. The new program in this conference agreement will provide that.

Many Americans--including many leaders in Congress--say that America's farm policy is ripe for reform. The farm bill conference report includes important farm tax reforms.

The conference report will prevent the use of farm losses as a tax shelter by limiting the amount of farming losses that a taxpayer may use on nonagricultural business income. It will ensure that farmers know their tax obligations by requiring the Commodity Credit Corporation to always provide the IRS and the farmer with information returns when the farmer repays a CCC market assistance loan. It will allow farmers to pay additional self-employment taxes to qualify for Social Security.

Taken together with a slight decrease in the ethanol tax credit and other offsets, these reforms fully offset the tax and trade package in this conference report.

American farmers and ranchers want to be responsible stewards of their land. But the financial pressure to sell to developers can be extreme. The farm bill conference report includes tax incentives to encourage and enable private landowners to promote conservation on their land.

The conference report provides conservation tax relief for retired and disabled farmers. It would exempt CRP payments to these individuals from self-employment taxes. And it would keep these payments from reducing their Social Security or disability payments.

Nearly two-thirds of endangered and threatened species are found on private lands. So the conference report establishes a tax deduction for the cost of landowners' actions to implement recovery plans under the Endangered Species Act.

More than 10 million acres of conservation easements are held by land trusts nationwide, many of them donated. The enhanced charitable tax deduction for conservation easements has proven to be a valuable incentive for making these kinds of gifts. So the conference report extends the enhanced deduction for conservation easements.

The conference report also includes important provisions to protect American timber jobs and American lands. This conference report will help the American timber industry to remain globally competitive. And it will help to keep timber land from being sold for development.

America's farming families sacrifice a lot to feed this country. The farm bill conference report includes a number of tax relief provisions to help them to start farming, help them to stay financially afloat, and help to make the Tax Code fairer for those who make a living working the land.

The conference report improves ``Aggie Bonds.'' These are tax-exempt bonds that provide low-interest loans for first-time farmers and ranchers.

Agricultural chemicals and pesticides purchased for legitimate uses are increasingly vulnerable to theft because of the drug trade and national security threats. The conference report provides support for agricultural businesses by providing a credit for the costs of protecting these agricultural chemicals and pesticides.

Some State water rules keep farmers and ranchers from selling their land when they need to or want to. The conference report will allow the tax-free exchange of stock that represents a holding of water rights. This will allow this stock to be treated like real property under section 1031 of the Tax Code.

As summer approaches, American families are paying higher prices than ever for gasoline. Our country needs to break its dependence on foreign oil and fossil-based fuels. And America's agricultural sector can help, with homegrown energy solutions.

Cellulosic biofuels can be produced from agricultural waste, woodchips, switchgrass, and other nonfood feedstocks such as brewer's spent grains. With an abundant and diverse source of feedstocks available, cellulosic biofuels hold tremendous promise as a homegrown alternative to fossil-based fuels.

But because cellulosic biofuels are very expensive to make, government assistance can help to spur these fuels to commercial viability. The farm bill conference report includes a new, temporary production tax credit for cellulosic biofuels. The credit will be worth up to $1.01 per gallon. And it will be available through December 31, 2012.

The farm bill conference report also contains a number of trade- related measures. Enforcement of the softwood lumber agreements is one of these provisions. Timber is an important agricultural product. And America both produces and imports significant amounts of timber-related products, including softwood lumber.

As the downturn in the housing market continues to hurt American softwood lumber producers, America's trading partners must be held to fair trade standards for softwood lumber.

The conference report includes an importer declaration program that will require American importers of softwood lumber to ensure that their imports are consistent with America's international agreements. The softwood lumber provision will also force the administration to take affirmative steps to enforce American softwood trade agreements.

And, Mr. President, this is a good conference report. We should pass it, and send it to the President.

Let us pay tribute to that sacred emblem, that mute gospel, the American farm. Let us address the challenges facing the farmer and rural America. And let us pass this much-needed conference report.

I have never been more proud of what all you do in helping to provide food and fiber for America.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff of the Finance Committee be allowed on the Senate floor for the duration of the debate on the farm bill: Ayesha Khanna, Bridget Mallon, Scott Guenther, Bruce Fergusson, Kelsey Hamilton, Libby Cohn, Nathan Empsall, Ezana Teferra, Jeremiah Langston, and Thea Murray.

Mr. President, I wish to give special recognition to the music department of Bridger High School for putting together an award-winning music education program. By demonstrating outstanding commitment to music education, Bridger High School won this year's GRAMMY' Signature School Award. This distinction is a national honor and a cause for celebration for the town of Bridger in my home State of Montana.

Music plays an integral part in our daily lives. It helps to define who we are as individuals and as a nation. Through music we celebrate, we laugh, we grieve and we heal. An old song, like an old friend, helps to recall feelings and memories lost in time.

The power of music is undeniable. Music education, therefore, is a sound investment. It teaches discipline and provides an avenue to express deep and powerful emotions. It enhances a student's performance in other subject areas. It makes a fundamental difference in the quality of life.

It makes an even bigger difference in the lives of students from economically underserved school districts. Bridger is a small town with a population less than 1,000. Under the watchful guidance of their music director Michel Sticka and principal John Ballard, the 28 music students from Bridger High strived to distinguish themselves and their school. They have succeeded. And so, they deserve our respect and admiration.

Being selected as a GRAMMY' Signature School is no small task. Bridger High School competed against 20,000 other public schools across the Nation to capture the distinction. In addition, the students at Bridger High went on to win the GRAMMY' Signature Schools Enterprise Award. The award recognizes three schools across the country for their efforts towards achieving music excellence. This national honor comes with a grant of $5,000 designed to benefit Bridger High's music program.

Because of a strong music education, for the students of Bridger High, the greatest reward comes from the lifelong benefit of being able to lead richer and fuller lives.

I couldn't be more proud of the students and faculty members at Bridger High School. They have gone above and beyond to put Bridger, MT, on the map, setting the standard for all Montana schools. I join my fellow Montanans in a chorus of praise for these 28 bright students on their extraordinary achievements: Benton D. Asbury, Katryna N. Asbury, Samantha J. Bobby, Jonathan E. Bostwick, Devon B. Caballero, Jenny M. Cooke, Jessica Denney, Karissa J. DeRudder, Sommer D. Dykstra, Rebekah Edelman, Hayden D. Forsythe, Hannah Goetz, Jacey K. Griswold, Elliott G. McCarthy, Forrest C. McCarthy, Kimberly M. McClurg, Heidi R. Mudd, Wendi N. Mudd, Tara R. Murray, Lenore K. Pierson, Cole D. Schwend, Edward Stevenson, Andrea D. Sticka, Bailee M. Vaugh, Ryan J. Witt, Kyla M. Young, Tyler D. Young, Brittany N. Zentner.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. President, on the surface, this is a complicated matter. Pension law is complicated. It gets into whether a company has a defined contribution plan, a defined benefit plan, issues such as: What is the assumed interest rate that applies to the pension plan? It is backwards: the higher the rate, frankly, the less of an obligation by the company to contribute to the plan. I think on the surface we would think it would be a little bit of the opposite. It gets into length of years, the time within which companies are required to contribute to their plan to fully fund their plan. It is very complicated on the surface.

It is very simple. This question we are dealing with here is very simple when you get down to what is going on around here. So I ask my colleagues to pay a lot of attention to the statistics and all the complexities at the surface, but pay more attention to what is going on here. After all the charts and all the statistics and all the stuff, what is going on here?

I think Senators and their staffs will find, when they do that, what is going on here is the question of--there are two questions here--do we want to keep the playing field level among the airlines? Airlines are going through some difficult times today, clearly. Fuel costs are high. There are other problems facing the airlines. But do we want the playing field to be level? The second question: Do we want to help provide adequate protection to the pension plans, to retirees? Those are the two basic questions.

So how did we get here? Back several years ago, after 9/11, and when the country was facing some economic difficulties, when pension plans were going belly up because companies, regrettably, were not adequately funding their pension plans--especially the defined benefit plans; to some degree, the defined contributions, but especially defined benefit plans--what did we do? We in the Congress exercised our responsibility to do something about all that. What did we do?

In 2006, we passed a pension bill. What did that provide? Well, we were kind of caught in the middle--Congress was--especially with respect to airlines because after 9/11, airlines were not doing well at all because people were not flying as much, and they were under significant stress and strain, and, at the same time, pension plans were not in good shape generally--not just airline pension plans but other companies' pension plans.

So we refined the law in 2006 to give much more protection to retirees in their pension plans because companies basically were not doing what they should have been doing back up to that time.

We had another little problem on the side, and that was airlines because they were under a lot more financial stress than other companies in the United States generally. So what did we do? We said: Well, we want to help the airlines. We do not want to hurt the airlines. We also want to protect the pension plans. So we raised the pension plan requirements that all companies must face.

But we gave a little break to the airlines. We gave a longer period of time in which they had to fully fund their plans. We said: For those that are in bankruptcy--there were a couple back then--you get a long time. You get 17 years. We will also give you a big, high interest rate. ``Big, high interest rate'' means it is computed at a greater rate of return on your assets so you do not have to contribute as much to the plan. We also gave a big break to the airlines that were not in bankruptcy. We gave them 10 years. The standard rule was 6 years for all other companies. We said: OK, you are in real stress. You get 17 years. If you are in some stress--not as much--you get 10 years. Those are companies that were not in as much stress. Those are companies that did not freeze their plans, whereas, those that had 17 years did freeze their plans. We said: OK, after 10 years and 17 years, the playing field will be back to level again.

A couple airlines with plans that were not frozen, that had the 10- year requirement--remember, the standard rule is 6 years, but they got the 10 years, not the 17 years--said: Wait a minute, you are helping those who are in bankruptcy too much at our expense. They said they were doing the right thing. So we said: OK--that is what this bill does--OK, we will give you virtually the same interest rate as the others. What does that mean? It means you do not have to contribute to your pension plan. You do not have to.

So we think that levels the playing field because now all companies will have to contribute to their plans, at least prospectively. We are saying to the other companies--the 10-year companies--you do not have to contribute to your plan up to today's date, up to 2008. You are free. You are off the hook.

So these arguments you hear on the floor that this underlying bill is putting financial stress on certain companies are not true because those companies will not have any obligation to contribute more to their pension plan for past liabilities, but they will currently.

We think that is a fair compromise. This is not a perfect world. But under our committee bill, it is clear it is basically a level playing field because all companies now will have the same computed interest rate to calculate what their assets are to indicate the degree to which they have to contribute to the plans.

Now the Durbin amendment says: No. No. We want to give a bigger break to the companies that do not freeze their plans that are not in bankruptcy. The effect of the Durbin amendment will be that those companies will not have to contribute to their pension plans. They have not, and they will not have to for a couple years in the future because the Durbin amendment gives a higher interest rate, which, in effect, means they will not have to contribute.

Well, if I am a retiree, and I work for one of these airlines, I would say: Wait a minute. I want to make sure I am protected too.

So, as I said, there are two questions here. Is the playing field level? And, are we going to protect the pension plans?

The effect of the committee bill is to level things off. It is not perfect, but it is almost perfect; where the effect of the Durbin amendment is to make it much less perfect and basically help a couple airlines that, as a consequence, will not have to contribute to their pension plans for past liabilities, and will not have to in the future either, because of the interest rate they provide for in their amendment, and other airlines will have to contribute into their plans.

I say the right answer here--airlines are squabbling among themselves over all this--the right answer is to keep it fair for everybody, have the same law essentially apply for everybody. The committee bill does that.

I might say also, we want to protect our pension plans because that was the whole purpose of the 2006 pension bill. The effect of the Durbin amendment is to say: No, these plans are not going to be protected as much under the Durbin amendment. That is not the right thing to do.

There are some who say: Gee, this is going to cause bankruptcies in the poor financial condition the country is in right now. That is a bogus argument. We are saying: Keep the playing field level. That is all we are saying in this committee bill. It is not going to affect the bottom line. Our committee bill will not affect the bottom line of these airlines because, basically, it is a cashflow issue because cash is transferrable between the plan and the

company. So it is not going to affect the bottom line of these airlines at all--the committee bill--nor will the Durbin amendment affect the bottom line. That is a bogus argument.

But the effect of the Durbin amendment is to give less protection to retirees--that is indisputable--less protection to retirees. And do not forget, under the 2006 pension bill, we were trying to give more protection to retirees.

Also, the second effect of the Durbin amendment is to unlevel the playing field. It favors certain airlines at the expense of others. I think the best policy is to protect pensioners and to protect retirees, and also to keep the playing field level. That is why I think it is better to not adopt the Durbin amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have some responses to the Senator from Illinois when we get back because they are bogus arguments.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, John F. Kennedy once said:

As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the

highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by

them.

I rise today to express my gratitude to the Montanans who have served our country in uniform. Montana is home to over 100,000 veterans. Many others gave the ultimate sacrifice in service of our Nation. Twenty- four Montanans have given their lives in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. We owe these brave warriors a debt of gratitude that can never be fully repaid, and it is an honor to call myself one of their countrymen.

These veterans embody everything that is great about this Nation. They are tough. They are smart. They work hard. No matter the task, they get the job done. But the highest appreciation deserves more than just words. In honor of all Montanans who have served this great Nation, I am launching the Defenders of Freedom Fellowship. The Defenders of Freedom Fellowship offers professional experience in the U.S. Senate for Montana veterans. Each fellow will work in my personal office on veterans issues. The fellow will research issues and correspond with constituents, attend congressional hearings, and work on new legislation. The fellow will gain a rare insight into how the American Government works. The fellow will serve our Nation's veterans and all the people of Montana.

The fellowship has three goals. First, the fellowship aims to help involve more veterans in public service. A veteran's patriotism and love of service is a valuable asset to any public office.

Second, the fellowship will take advantage of all the experience a veteran has to offer. Many of these young men and women have experience well beyond their years. We have much to learn from what they have seen and done. We will gain a new perspective on tough problems we are working to solve.

Last, the fellowship is a humble way to say thank you to Montana's veterans, humble because it is an invitation for a veteran to come to Washington to work. However, this fellowship can also offer a gift. Some fellows will find a love for public service that will last a lifetime. This passion for public service has propelled many to greatness. It is this spirit that has inspired our Nation's greatest leaders.

I am excited about this--very excited. I am very excited about this fellowship and the opportunity I will have to work with some of Montana's veterans. To all Montana veterans and their families, I offer my gratitude for your service and for your sacrifice. To the future Defenders of Freedom fellows, I look forward to working with you soon. I thank you in advance for your efforts. I am confident you will find your service very rewarding.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, it is frankly unfortunate that we are getting all high bound here and wrapped up around the axle. The action by the majority leader, as I understand it, in effect has adopted the Durbin amendment, which off the top I think is regrettable. I think it is important that this body protect pension plans--all pension plans-- and the effect of the substitute would be to let a certain airline off the hook in providing enough protection to the plans. It has made big promises, but it is not fully funding the plan.

Second, it is a bit disturbing that things have developed this way because I had discussions with the majority leader as to how we can resolve the Durbin amendment, how we can resolve that issue. It was my hope we could continue those negotiations and discussions to possibly take that issue off the table.

I say to my good friend from Texas and to all Members, the leader asked me to work with Senator Rockefeller to come up with a bill that merges both the Commerce Committee bill and the Finance Committee bill. Senator Rockefeller and I did that. We sat down and worked out an agreement on the bill. It is unfortunate we are not starting with that agreement because it is a good-faith agreement and it also included tax provisions. We have to have tax provisions to pay for our airlines, for the trust fund, the airline trust fund. We have to have tax provisions to pay for the highway trust fund. Again, we negotiated this out, the chairman and I did, Senator Rockefeller and I did in good faith and we came up with the measure which I think is fair.

Now, fairly, Senators have the right to offer amendments and should offer amendments. After all, this is the Senate. I think there is a way to work out the Durbin amendment. I made a suggestion to the majority leader as to how to do that, and I think it would be helpful if those negotiations could continue as we unwind one of the problems we are faced with. But second, I hope we can get away from the situation the minority leader described, which is filling up the tree which tends to get us stuck. The goal is not to get stuck; the goal is to seek an expeditious process and to move along quickly.

We have been spending all afternoon doing nothing, frankly. I made a suggestion as to how to deal with at least one significant part and that is the Durbin amendment, and it would be my hope that, as has been suggested, when the Sun rises tomorrow and we all sleep on this a little bit, cooler heads prevail, and we can find a way to get from here to there. That means passing the FAA bill, which deals with issues Senator Hutchison has talked about and which also finances the airport trust fund and the highway trust fund--that is, the plussed-up highway trust fund--and also a way to resolve the Durbin amendment in a fair and equitable way. Because nobody is 100 percent right here. Senator Durbin is not 100 percent right and I am not 100 percent right. But I do think there is a way to resolve this, and I hope this evening we can think about it, sleep on it, and work it out.

Mr. President, first, I appreciate the words of the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Texas and their willingness to work out an accommodation on the pension provision.

Second, I caution this body about potentially separating these bills because the revenues provided in the bill are for the airport trust fund. I think that is very important. Also, the revenues are provided for NextGen, which is the next generation of air traffic control infrastructure, as they move from analog to satellite. European countries already have it. We need it here. We are behind the times. We need the money to get started. So I wonder about the advisability of separating those provisions.

Third, our highway trust fund is in deep trouble because of inflation, fuel costs, and construction costs going up. It is important that we so-called plus-up the highway trust fund and revenues there. The ways we are paying for the highway trust fund have been agreed to by the Commerce Committee and the Finance Committee, Senator Rockefeller and myself. We agreed. That should not be an issue. The ways we are paying for the highway trust fund are provisions that are very meek and mild, not inflammatory at all. One is to limit fuel fraud. We should do that. Next, we should increase the solvency of the liability trust fund. That has not been opposed by anybody that I am aware of. That is jobs. We know this country and our growth rate is not what we would like it to be, and we could work this out.

Again, here we are at about 7 o'clock this evening, and a lot of good words have been spoken in good faith. Let's follow up and try to find a solution tomorrow.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commiitee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 30, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., in closed session to mark up the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2009.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, April 30, 2008, at 3:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 30, 2008, at 10 a.m., in closed session to mark up the Airland programs and provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Secret Law and the Threat to Democratic and Accountable Government'' on Wednesday, April 30, 2008, at 9 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 30, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in closed session to mark up the Strategic Forces Programs and Provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 30, 2008, from 3-5 p.m., in Hart 216 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following fellows and interns of the Finance Committee be allowed floor privileges during consideration of the FAA bill: Ben Miller, Bridget Mallon, Damian Kudelka, Emily Schwartz, Ezana Teferra, Mary Baker, Tamara Clay, and Tom Louthan.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Leighton Quon of my staff be granted the privileges of the floor during consideration of the FAA bill.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all the time remaining for morning business be yielded back.

Mr. President, at 5:30 this afternoon, the Senate will vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the reauthorization of the airport and airway trust fund, also known as the aviation trust fund. I urge my colleagues to support getting to this important bill.

Before getting to the specifics of the bill, however, I would like to give some perspective on our current aviation system. And I will start with the story of Sir Robert Watson-Watt.

Robert Watson-Watt was born in Scotland in 1892. He was a descendant of the steam-engine pioneer James Watt. Robert was a student of science, with a fascination for radio waves and how they might be used to transmit information. After finishing school, he got a job as a meteorologist at the Royal Aircraft Factory, not far from London. He worked on developing methods of using radio waves to help British airmen locate and avoid thunderstorms.

After years of work, in 1935, Watson-Watt produced a report called ``The Detection of Aircraft by Radio Methods.'' The report suggested a new idea. The idea was that people could use shortwave radio to detect not only bad weather, but also aircraft, including bombers.

Watson-Watt's superiors tested his theory, and it worked. They called his new gizmo RADAR, an acronym for radio detection and ranging.

By the time that World War II broke out in September 1939, the British Government had installed radar all along the English Channel and the North Sea coasts. That gave the British advance warning of Hitler's bombers. Acclaimed historian A.J.P. Taylor said he doubted that Britain could have survived the Second World War without Watson- Watt's invention.

Next, radar was ready for commercial application. All civil aviation needed for dramatic growth was a faster set of planes. That happened with advent of the jet engine in the 1950s and 1960s.

In 1952, what is now British Airways introduced the de Havilland Comets. Those were 36-seat British-made jets that could fly as fast as 500 miles an hour. Six years later, the Boeing 707 entered commercial service. Pan Am flew it from New York to Paris in just under 9 hours-- twice as fast as a propeller plane.

It took Charles Lindberg 33 hours--almost four times longer.

Seven years after that, in February 1969, the world's first wide-body jet--the Boeing 747--made its inaugural flight. With seating for up to 450 passengers, the 747 was 80 percent bigger than the largest jet of that time. The era of mass aviation was in full swing.

But as air travel flourished, growing pains ensued. And by the late 1960s, public concern over air-traffic had spilled into the headlines: Here's a news story from 1967.

Thicket in the Skies. . . . When a passenger hops a

commercial plane to get from here to there quickly, he soon

discovers that man does not live by one means of

transportation alone. The Labor Day weekend congestion and

peril underscores the point. . . .

And here's another story, from May 1969:

FAA Predicts Summer Air Jam. . . . [The FAA] forecast

yesterday that, despite Federal restrictions that would limit

flights at five major airports beginning June 1, air

travelers might have another summer of frustrating delays.

In short, the air transport system had grown beyond anyone's expectations. Change was needed. Congress responded by passing groundbreaking legislation.

In May 1970, Congress passed the aviation trust fund. Congress built on a Nixon administration proposal to adopt a law in which users of the aviation system paid for its upkeep. The new law imposed taxes on tickets, fuel, cargo, and the like. And the law established the aviation trust fund to provide a stable source of funding for our Nation's aviation needs.

Despite some ups and downs over the last 38 years--including a lapse of the Trust Fund in the early 1980s--this system of funding air traffic has by and large succeeded. The rates of the taxes have changed. And some--like those on aircraft tires--have been phased out. But generally, this Trust Fund has managed to finance the needs of the air-traveling public.

Not anymore. Our system needs modernization, to improve efficiency and safety. Our 2008 trust fund, born in the 1970s, is paying for 1930s technology. That will change with passage of this bill. That will change with the adoption of NextGen.

And that brings us to the bill in connection with which we will vote this afternoon--the reauthorization of the airport and airway trust fund, also known as the aviation trust fund. The trust fund finances the U.S. aviation system, with about $12 billion per year in user-based taxes. The Senate substitute amendment would provide an additional $800 million to the trust fund over the next 3 years. The bill would provide needed funds to modernize our aviation system.

The Senate substitute amendment is a compromise product. It represents months of work on the part of the Finance and Commerce Committees. Its passage promises improvements in safety and efficiency for air travelers.

Key to that improvement is NextGen. NextGen is the Federal Aviation Administration's plan to modernize the Nation's air-traffic system. NextGen would address the effect of air traffic growth. It would increase air-traffic capacity and efficiency. And it would improve safety and reduce the effect of air travel on the environment.

Generally speaking, NextGen involves the use of satellite-based technology. This includes items like Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast. ADS-B would allow aircraft to continuously transmit location, speed, and altitude to other planes, pilots, and controllers. And that would improve the efficiency and safety of air traffic.

Instead of using Watson-Watt's radar to tell where they are, planes equipped with ADS-B get their exact location from Global Positioning System satellites. They then broadcast their flight number, speed, and heading--automatically and continuously--to ground control and other planes within 150 miles. This is a sea change in air-traffic technology. And we need to invest in it now.

So how do we pay for NextGen? The Finance Committee passed a bill to pay for NextGen this way:

First, we set the tax for General Aviation jet fuel at 36 cents a gallon. That is up from the current 21.9 cents a gallon. This proposal was agreed to by the General Aviation community. And it will raise about $240 million a year in additional funds for NextGen. Note that this proposal does not affect those who fly planes using ``avgas,'' such as a propeller-powered Cessna.

Second, we moved partially owned planes--known as ``fractional'' aircraft--from the commercial taxation regime to that of General Aviation. Fractional owners expressed concern that without this change, their ability to fly and land in Europe would be hampered. The European Union has strict rules governing which airports commercial flights can use. And this change should allow fractional aircraft to be considered as general aviation not commercial aviation. This change comes with a cost to the fractional users.

The Senate substitute amendment drops a proposed increase on the tax on international departures and arrivals. The Finance Committee bill proposed raising that rate--currently at $15.40--by $1.55 each way. That is just over $3 roundtrip. We argued that if someone had the wherewithal to travel overseas, then the cost of a Starbucks at the airport was a reasonable price to pay for contributing to a modernized air traffic system.

But given the state of the commercial airline industry, Senator Rockefeller and I agreed to drop this provision. In the face of dramatically higher fuel prices and mounting financial losses, we agreed that this was not the time to raise extra funds from the commercial industry.

All told, the package in the Senate substitute amendment raises an additional $800 million over the next 3 years. More may be needed, especially given the rapid state of technological change. I know that both the Finance Committee and Commerce Committee plan to monitor NextGen's implementation. And since this is just a 3-year reauthorization, we will be back at this again before long.

Finally, I will note that this bill is not just about aviation. The Finance Committee package also contains other critical infrastructure items, including a direly needed fix to the highway trust fund. The highway trust fund will run a deficit in 2009, unless Congress acts to repair that deficit.

In a time when our surface transportation suffers as much as--if not more so--than our air transport system, it is imperative that Congress act to restore needed monies to the highway trust fund. We need to finance construction and repair of our Nation's roads and bridges.

Taxes on gasoline, diesel, and heavy trucks finance the highway trust fund. The highway trust fund is thus sensitive to changes in the use of these items. As Americans drive less, and as vehicle fuel-efficiency increases, the highway trust fund's balance has taken a significant hit.

A highway trust fund deficit is projected for 2009. And even worse projections are expected for 2010 and beyond. As we get nearer to the next highway bill, it's important that we at least make the highway trust fund whole going into 2009. The Senate substitute amendment would do that. And I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, we'll have a vigorous debate this week. And I look forward to it.

But before that debate begins in earnest, I want to thank my colleagues--particularly Senators Rockefeller and Inouye--for their willingness to seek common ground. I think that the Senate substitute amendment is a good package.

So let us help to bring air travel from Robert Watson-Watt's 1935 idea into the 21st century. Let us adopt NextGen to improve safety and efficiency in the skies. And let us vote to move to this bill this afternoon.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be equally divided between the two sides.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize a distinguished and decorated World War II U.S. Army Air Corps veteran from my home State of Montana. Born in the small, humble town of Forsyth, 1LT Roy E. June comes as an inspiration to those who wish to lead a life of service to their country and their communities.

From the tragedy of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, came America's greatest generation responding to the certain urgency of that era. Like many young men of that generation, Roy and his buddies enlisted in the Armed Forces to defend their country and to advance the just cause of freedom. In the U.S. Army Air Corps, Roy's bravery and skills as a fighter pilot set him above the rest. As a P-51 Mustang fighter pilot, Roy escorted B-29 bombers to Japan, strafed and dive-bombed strategic military installations on Chi Chi Jima. For his heroism in the Pacific Theater, Roy earned an Air Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster and the Distinguished Flying Cross. His 15th Fighter Group, the 47th Fighter Squadron was awarded a Distinguished Unit Citation.

A fellow returning from Hawaii brought news about the end of the war. ``Atomic Bomb Dropped On Japan'' read the headline of the Honolulu Daily Advertiser. After 11 missions over Japan and more than 500 combat hours in the P-51s, Roy returned home to Missoula in January 1946.

Having grown up in the great State of Montana, Roy could recall many fond memories from his youth in his hometown of Forsyth. Roy was a Boy Scout and played center on the high school football team. Summers meant Huck Finn adventures and odd jobs; winters, though harsh, saw skating parties on the Yellowstone and ice hockey using sticks and tin cans. Before he joined the Air Corps, Roy studied engineering at the Montana State College in Bozeman.

And like all Montanans who believe a good education is a lifelong process, Roy went back to school after his return from war. With degrees in journalism and business administration from the University of Montana in Missoula, Roy entered law school in 1949. There he met his wife Laura Jane Brautigam, also a native of Montana.

Receiving his law degree in 1952, Roy went on to practice law in Helena where he helped to draft bills for State senators during the 1953 session. In Billings, he became an associate in the law firm of Sanders, Cresap and Koch representing groups such as the National Beef Council and the National Livestock Auction Markets. A few years later, Roy moved to California to serve as the city attorney for Costa Mesa. He took with him the spirit of Montana generosity and incorporated several nonprofit companies pro bono as his contribution to his community.

Even after his retirement in December 1996, Roy continues to give back to his community by volunteering at the Palm Springs Air Museum. Armed with firsthand knowledge of World War II aviation and the conflicts in the Pacific Theater, Roy shares his vivid

experience with all, much to the delight of visitors, young and old.

Mr. President, 1LT Roy June is a testament to the Montana spirit. We believe in courage, sacrifice, and service. From Montana to the Japanese Islands of Iwo Jima and Chi Chi Jima, wherever Roy was, he put up his best for his community and more importantly, his country. My fellow Montanans and I are extremely proud of Roy and his contributions to our State and Nation. A son of Montana from America's greatest generation, Roy reminds all of us that commitment and service to this country never end.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a tax package that would extend relief from the alternative minimum tax and extend other much-needed individual and business provisions.

When the economy is turning down, Americans need certainty about their taxes. Families and businesses need to know what the tax law is.

That is why my bill provides a one year patch for the AMT. The patch will hold the number of taxpayers subject to the AMT at 4.2 million. We will not let more taxpayers fall into the alternative minimum tax.

Last year, Congress did not put a patch in place until December. We must act sooner this year. Through this bill, Congress can act.

That is why my package contains a 2-year extension of provisions that expired at the end of last year.

These include the qualified tuition deduction to give families relief from high tuition costs.

My package also includes the teacher expense deduction. This deduction gives teachers some of the money that they spend on school supplies to educate our children.

The package also includes the State and local sales tax deduction for those States without an income tax.

The bill offers an extension of the research and development credit. This credit gives an incentive to businesses to invest in research. It helps to keep America competitive in the global economy.

My package will also extend provisions that expire this year for an additional year.

The bill extends much-needed energy provisions.

Public and private investment in the renewable energy sector was about $90 billion worldwide last year. That's a 27 percent increase over 2006.

Congress can direct this investment toward the U.S.--rather than overseas--by supporting clean energy tax incentives.

These incentives include tax credits for wind and solar power, efficient buildings and appliances, and clean renewable energy bonds.

These provisions are not only good energy policy. They also create jobs.

This package would also extend wind and solar provisions.

The American solar industry employs 20,000 Americans. With a long- term extension of the solar tax credit, that number would triple.

The American wind industry expanded by 45 percent in 2007. It contributed about 30 percent of the new power capacity in America last year.

These job-creating industries are growing fast. We should support them. We know what happens when we don't.

For example, the tax credit for production of renewable energy was enacted in 1992, starting the growth of renewable power in the U.S.

But since 1999, this credit has expired three times. And when it expires, clean energy suffers, leading to declines between 73 percent and 93 percent in wind energy investment.

We need to keep this credit going to ensure consistent investment in the wind power industry.

This package would also promote energy efficiency. Efficiency is the low- hanging fruit in the energy debate. We can make big strides toward energy independence and a clean environment by getting more for our energy buck.

For example, ENERGY STAR--a voluntary labeling program designed to promote energy-efficient products--saved businesses, organizations, and consumers an estimated $14 billion in 2006.

Efficiency also creates jobs. The American Solar Energy Society reported that in 2006, the efficiency industry created 8 million jobs, over half of them in manufacturing.

The government plays a key role in sustaining the efficiency industry, through tax incentives for efficient commercial buildings, homes, and appliances.

This package would also extend the clean renewable energy bonds, or CREBs.

CREBs passed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. CREBs spurred more than 700 new wind, biomass, solar, and hydro projects. The number of projects far exceeded the funding available to pay for them.

But CREBs funding lapsed at the end of 2007. That halted development of new projects and the green-collar jobs that go with them. We must keep these projects going.

The CREBs provision was written for non-taxable entities like rural co-ops. Those non-taxable entities cannot use other tax incentives in this package.

I've listed just a few of the important energy items in this extenders bill. There are more. And I plan to build upon this package as it makes its way through the legislative process, with edits and additional items. The Finance Committee has been working to that end for the better part of a year.

Last June, the Finance Committee passed a roughly $30 billion energy- tax package, with a resounding bipartisan vote. A majority of the Senate voted for that bill.

But we were just shy of getting the required 60 votes.

We tried again in December, with a slimmer package. That time, we fell short of the required 60 by just one vote.

We then tried in February, as part of economic stimulus bill. We offered a package very similar to what passed last week. That amendment got 58 votes.

Last week, this body passed, by a solid 88-8 vote, a package of energy-tax extenders, similar to the package considered during the economic stimulus debate.

A vote of 88 to 8 might suggest that there is smooth sailing ahead on energy-tax legislation. But I'm afraid that's not the case.

The day before the Senate passed its housing bill, including the energy-tax package, the House Ways and Means Committee passed its own housing relief bill.

The Ways and Means bill restated the House's position on pay-go. The House requires that the most of the tax package be offset.

How did the Ways and Means Committee offset the bill? Largely with a provision called ``basis reporting.'' President Bush included this in his 2009 budget proposal.

In other words, the House paid for a tax package with an item already supported, at least in principle, by the President.

While I believe that this Congress should have paid for energy-tax legislation with the offsets passed by Finance Committee last year, it's not clear that passing that package gets us any further to extending these important tax incentives.

That is why I have been working on offsets that can pass both bodies and be signed by the President. That is what I will continue to do to get these important energy items--as well as other vital extenders-- passed.

By taking care of this now, we can spend more of our time on other things like tax reform.

I plan to hold several hearings and roundtables to cuss tax reform. We began this week. I'm serious about simplifying our tax code. I am serious about helping the American people.

Congress should do more than just extend legislation. Congress needs to work on new policy, new legislation, and new ideas. And by enacting this legislation, we can turn to those important goals. I urge my colleagues to support this package.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing a tax package that would extend relief from the alternative minimum tax and extend other much-needed individual and business provisions.

When the economy is turning down, Americans need certainty about their taxes. Families and businesses need to know what the tax law is.

That is why my bill provides a one year patch for the AMT. The patch will hold the number of taxpayers subject to the AMT at 4.2 million. We will not let more taxpayers fall into the alternative minimum tax.

Last year, Congress did not put a patch in place until December. We must act sooner this year. Through this bill, Congress can act.

That is why my package contains a 2-year extension of provisions that expired at the end of last year.

These include the qualified tuition deduction to give families relief from high tuition costs.

My package also includes the teacher expense deduction. This deduction gives teachers some of the money that they spend on school supplies to educate our children.

The package also includes the State and local sales tax deduction for those States without an income tax.

The bill offers an extension of the research and development credit. This credit gives an incentive to businesses to invest in research. It helps to keep America competitive in the global economy.

My package will also extend provisions that expire this year for an additional year.

The bill extends much-needed energy provisions.

Public and private investment in the renewable energy sector was about $90 billion worldwide last year. That's a 27 percent increase over 2006.

Congress can direct this investment toward the U.S.--rather than overseas--by supporting clean energy tax incentives.

These incentives include tax credits for wind and solar power, efficient buildings and appliances, and clean renewable energy bonds.

These provisions are not only good energy policy. They also create jobs.

This package would also extend wind and solar provisions.

The American solar industry employs 20,000 Americans. With a long- term extension of the solar tax credit, that number would triple.

The American wind industry expanded by 45 percent in 2007. It contributed about 30 percent of the new power capacity in America last year.

These job-creating industries are growing fast. We should support them. We know what happens when we don't.

For example, the tax credit for production of renewable energy was enacted in 1992, starting the growth of renewable power in the U.S.

But since 1999, this credit has expired three times. And when it expires, clean energy suffers, leading to declines between 73 percent and 93 percent in wind energy investment.

We need to keep this credit going to ensure consistent investment in the wind power industry.

This package would also promote energy efficiency. Efficiency is the low- hanging fruit in the energy debate. We can make big strides toward energy independence and a clean environment by getting more for our energy buck.

For example, ENERGY STAR--a voluntary labeling program designed to promote energy-efficient products--saved businesses, organizations, and consumers an estimated $14 billion in 2006.

Efficiency also creates jobs. The American Solar Energy Society reported that in 2006, the efficiency industry created 8 million jobs, over half of them in manufacturing.

The government plays a key role in sustaining the efficiency industry, through tax incentives for efficient commercial buildings, homes, and appliances.

This package would also extend the clean renewable energy bonds, or CREBs.

CREBs passed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. CREBs spurred more than 700 new wind, biomass, solar, and hydro projects. The number of projects far exceeded the funding available to pay for them.

But CREBs funding lapsed at the end of 2007. That halted development of new projects and the green-collar jobs that go with them. We must keep these projects going.

The CREBs provision was written for non-taxable entities like rural co-ops. Those non-taxable entities cannot use other tax incentives in this package.

I've listed just a few of the important energy items in this extenders bill. There are more. And I plan to build upon this package as it makes its way through the legislative process, with edits and additional items. The Finance Committee has been working to that end for the better part of a year.

Last June, the Finance Committee passed a roughly $30 billion energy- tax package, with a resounding bipartisan vote. A majority of the Senate voted for that bill.

But we were just shy of getting the required 60 votes.

We tried again in December, with a slimmer package. That time, we fell short of the required 60 by just one vote.

We then tried in February, as part of economic stimulus bill. We offered a package very similar to what passed last week. That amendment got 58 votes.

Last week, this body passed, by a solid 88-8 vote, a package of energy-tax extenders, similar to the package considered during the economic stimulus debate.

A vote of 88 to 8 might suggest that there is smooth sailing ahead on energy-tax legislation. But I'm afraid that's not the case.

The day before the Senate passed its housing bill, including the energy-tax package, the House Ways and Means Committee passed its own housing relief bill.

The Ways and Means bill restated the House's position on pay-go. The House requires that the most of the tax package be offset.

How did the Ways and Means Committee offset the bill? Largely with a provision called ``basis reporting.'' President Bush included this in his 2009 budget proposal.

In other words, the House paid for a tax package with an item already supported, at least in principle, by the President.

While I believe that this Congress should have paid for energy-tax legislation with the offsets passed by Finance Committee last year, it's not clear that passing that package gets us any further to extending these important tax incentives.

That is why I have been working on offsets that can pass both bodies and be signed by the President. That is what I will continue to do to get these important energy items--as well as other vital extenders-- passed.

By taking care of this now, we can spend more of our time on other things like tax reform.

I plan to hold several hearings and roundtables to cuss tax reform. We began this week. I'm serious about simplifying our tax code. I am serious about helping the American people.

Congress should do more than just extend legislation. Congress needs to work on new policy, new legislation, and new ideas. And by enacting this legislation, we can turn to those important goals. I urge my colleagues to support this package.

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

I would say to my colleagues from Maryland and Nevada that I, too, think that in the current economy, a temporary tax credit is a meritorious idea. I commend the Senators for working so hard on their amendment and I can understand their disappointment. It appears that, yesterday, the Ways and Means Committee adopted a credit more along the lines the Senators have proposed. I look forward to working with the House in a conference to craft a homebuyer tax credit that will help the housing market recover. There are many things we can and should do to help homeowners and a targeted, temporary homebuyer credit is one of them.

Mr. President, I am proud to have worked with my colleague Chuck Grassley on the important tax relief measures in this bill. They will help homeowners, homebuyers, and homebuilders. And I urge my colleagues to support them.

The tax provisions in the bill come to a little over $10 billion over 10 years.

The bill creates a standard property tax deduction for homeowners who do not itemize their Federal taxes. And that deduction will help low- and middle-income homeowners to afford to keep their homes.

The bill increases funding for mortgage revenue bonds. And those bonds will help homeowners and homebuyers to obtain affordable loans.

The bill provides a substantial credit to buyers of foreclosed homes. And that credit will help to stabilize local markets and restore property values.

The bill allows companies losing money--and laying off employees--to write off current losses and bolster struggling operations. And that ability to carry over losses will help struggling companies to keep workers on the payroll.

There is no magic solution to this housing crisis. This bill is just plain responsible policy. It addresses a lot of irresponsible actions that led to serious trouble for many Americans and for our economy.

To respond to this crisis, Senator Grassley and I crafted provisions that support American families and American workers. These folks deserve to keep their homes. And they deserve to keep their jobs.

This bill will put real money in their pockets. It will do so through tax relief. And it will do so through continued paychecks from companies that use the tax relief in the bill to survive.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Let's send it to the House. Let's send its tax relief to American homeowners, homebuyers, and homebuilders. And let's speed this help to American families and American workers.