Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following people be allowed privileges of the floor: Susan Hinck, Elise Stein, Mollie Lane, Kayleigh Brown, Michael Bagel, and Emily Schwartz.

Madam President, is the Senate in morning business?

I rise to speak for less than 10 minutes.

I thank the Chair.

I would like to make two points. First, the Finance Committee held a hearing this morning--in fact, it is going on right now--on an economic stimulus package, pressing the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, on various options that will stimulate the economy the most and what options will help people who need their money the most. That is not just all Americans who pay income taxes but people who don't pay income taxes, people who don't pay payroll taxes but file because they think, as good Americans, they should--they have no income tax liability and no payroll tax liability--and also some senior citizens who file income tax returns but who do not have any significant income tax liability. The fact is, if the rebate alone were to be given to anybody who files an income tax return, which was not the case with the 2001 rebate program--that applied only to people who paid income taxes--if a rebate were to apply to all filers irrespective of whether they paid income tax, that would reach 90-plus percent of all Americans. Add to that extending unemployment insurance benefits and food stamp benefits, I think that package would really help people who need it the most.

There are various ways to put this together. I even suggested as a possibility, so as not to spend more than we should on a total package, that whereas the President is suggesting an $800 rebate for individual filers and a $1,600 rebate for couples, that could be significantly cut down, but give a bonus to households that have children so that a couple with two or three children would get an additional, say, $400 bonus per child in addition to the, say, $400 or $500 payment an individual would get or, say, an $800 check that a couple would get.

My point is, the Finance Committee is exploring different ways to make sure we do what is best. Of course, it will depend on some negotiation with the White House and both Houses of Congress. But I want to make the point clearly that we in the Finance Committee are doing our level best to try to find what works best, to get the greatest bang for the buck, with a view toward getting a stimulus package passed quickly, not loading it up with measures that are going to bog it down and prevent passage.

Madam President, I rise to speak briefly on the next order of business, and that is the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

In the 1939 WPA Guide to Montana, it is written:

The Indian attitude toward the land was expressed by a Crow

named Curly.

He was from the Crow Indian tribe. Here is what he said:

The soil you see is not ordinary soil--it is the dust of

the blood, the flesh, and the bones of our ancestors. You

will have to dig down to find Nature's earth, for the upper

portion is Crow, my blood and my dead. I do not want to give

it up.

But over our long national history, we all know, sadly, the Federal Government repeatedly separated America's original inhabitants from the land they so dearly loved and continue to love. As a result of that sad and sometimes dishonorable history, as a result of treaties, statutes, court decisions,

executive orders, and moral obligations, the United States owes a singular debt to its Native Americans.

In partial fulfillment of that obligation, in 1976, Congress passed the first Indian Health Care Improvement Act. That 1976 law was the first legislative statement of goals for Federal Indian health care programs. That law established the first statutory requirements for the provision of resources to meet those goals.

In that 1976 act, the Congress found that:

Federal health services to maintain and improve the health

of the Indians are consonant with and required by the Federal

Government's historical and unique legal relationship with,

and resulting responsibility to, the American Indian people.

Today, when we get to the bill--I think roughly in about an hour from now--at long last, we will have before us the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 2007. It has been a long trail that has led us here today. It is important we made the journey to get here. This bill will provide better health care for nearly 2 million American Indians from 562 federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes. We need to improve the health care of Native Americans. Native Americans suffer from tuberculosis at a rate 7\1/2\ times higher than the non- Indian population. The Native American suicide rate is 60 percent higher than in the general population.

Medicare--our program for seniors--spends about $6,800 per person a year. Medicaid--the low-income program for health care--spends about $4,300 per person. The Bureau of Prisons spends about $3,200 per person for health care. But the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service spends only $2,100 for health care. That is less than a third of Medicare, less than half of Medicaid, and a third less than what the Federal Government spends for medical care for prisoners.

From the beginning of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976, Medicare and Medicaid have played a part in paying for health care delivered to Native Americans. The 1976 act amended the Social Security Act ``to permit reimbursement by Medicare and Medicaid for covered services provided by the Indian Health Service.'' Today, Medicare, Medicaid, and now the Children's Health Insurance Program are a significant source of funding for health care delivered to Native Americans.

I am proud that an important part of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act before us today is a product of the Finance Committee. That committee's provisions address health care provided to Indians through Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program. Those provisions would increase outreach and enrollment of Indians in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. These provisions would protect Indian health care providers from discrimination in payment for services and require States and the Secretary of HHS to consult with Indian health providers, and they would ensure that Medicaid managed care organizations pay Indian health providers appropriately.

It is a good package. It is not near enough. It is an abomination--it is a tragedy what little attention we pay to Native Americans' health care needs. I wish more people in the country would visit Indian reservations. I wish they would visit Indian Health Service hospitals. They would realize the abysmal plight of so many people in America. But this bill helps. It helps provide more resources where people need it-- not near enough but more--and I strongly encourage the Senate to pass this bill when we get to it in the next hour or so. Congress should reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

The United States owes a debt to the Native American population whose ancestors are tied up with the very soil all Americans share. The Federal Government owes a duty to help improve the health of American Indians. And we in this Senate have the obligation to pass this act and honor the flesh, the bones, and the blood of our Indian brethren.

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

Mr. President, today, we face a major setback to the effort to advance American exports and freer international trade. Some on the other side of the aisle are threatening to kill trade adjustment assistance, or TAA.

Trade adjustment assistance provides training, health, and income benefits to trade-displaced workers. It has been integral to America's trade policy since 1962. That is when President Kennedy first created the program.

TAA has helped America's workers to improve their competitiveness. It has helped workers to retrain and retool. And it has provided Americans the security of knowing that the government will help them if trade causes a displacement.

Trade adjustment assistance has been vital to my home State of Montana. Since the last TAA reauthorization in 2002, more than 1,500 Montanans have participated in the TAA program. It has helped workers especially in the lumber industry to retrain and re-enter the workforce.

In May, one particular Montanan, Jerry Ann Ross of Eureka, testified about trade adjustment assistance before the Senate Finance Committee. Jerry's story is like that of many Montanans who have been laid off from American lumber mills.

Jerry worked at a lumber mill for 13 years. But then in 2005, she lost her job. That is when she became eligible for trade adjustment assistance. With TAA's help, Jerry entered a training program at Flathead Valley Community College. She expects to graduate this month.

With TAA's help, Jerry has updated her skills. She has made herself more competitive in the workforce as a construction superintendent and an accountant. Jerry's is one of many TAA success stories around the country.

At the Finance Committee hearing, we also learned that the current trade adjustment assistance is not perfect. It needs to be updated. We need to improve it to reflect today's globalized economy.

That is why in July, along with Senator Olympia Snowe, I introduced the Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act. Our bill would correct the flaws of today's program.

Our bill would extend TAA benefits to service workers. Service workers account for four out of five jobs in our economy. Our bill would extend TAA benefits to workers whose companies outsource to China, India, and other countries with which America does not have a free-trade agreement. Our bill would increase training funds for States. It would make sure that States have enough money to retrain workers. And our bill would increase the portion of the health care tax credit that the

Government provides to ensure that trade-displaced workers have access to health care coverage while they are retraining.

The House passed similar legislation in November. But the Senate has not yet completed the job. That is why a 3-month extension of trade adjustment assistance is critical. It would keep the current program going. It would provide time for Congress to complete its work on reauthorizing the program.

Last week, the House passed a 3-month extension of the TAA program. The House bill is fully offset. It is noncontroversial. That bill should have passed easily in the Senate. But instead, some on the other side of the aisle have chosen to hold it up. Their dispute is over an unrelated issue. As a consequence, some on the other side of the aisle are close to allowing trade adjustment assistance to expire.

TAA expiration would send a horrible message to America's workers, especially those who depend on trade adjustment assistance. TAA expiration would also send a terrible message about the 2008 trade agenda. If the Senate cannot pass a 3-month extension of trade adjustment assistance, I am not sure what the Congress can do on trade next year.

Reauthorization and modernization of trade adjustment assistance is my No. 1 trade priority for 2008. It is the right thing to do. American workers deserve no less.

Unless Congress passes a robust TAA bill next year, I don't see how we can move pending trade agreements. trade adjustment assistance has to come first.

So, Mr. President, I call on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are holding up this modest extension of trade adjustment to think again. I call on them to allow this useful program to continue, and I call on them to step back from what could be a major setback to American exports and freer international trade.

I appreciate Senators Lincoln's and Smith's leadership on this issue and I share their view. Although I had concerns about a somewhat similar provision that was considered in 2006, the fact that that there is now a consensus in support of the TREE Act in the U.S. forest products industry, and that modifications have been made, have led me to support the TREE Act, and to work to include it in both the tax title of the Energy bill and the tax title of the farm bill. I understand the time constraints, and pledge to work with the Senator from Arkansas and the Senator from Oregon, other interested Senators, and with the leaders of the House Ways and Means Committee to see that the TREE Act is enacted as part of the farm bill or other appropriate vehicle early in 2008.

Mr. President, I want to honor Mr. Patrick G. Heck, who is retiring this month following 23 years of dedicated Federal service. Pat has served the Finance Committee and all Americans extremely well during his eight years as tax counsel for the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, and as chief tax counsel for the past 4 years.

As a college freshman, Pat began his congressional career as a file clerk for his Congressman. Throughout his distinguished public service career, Pat's tireless dedication has earned the respect of his peers, family, and community. Pat commands the respect of both Democratic and Republican staff throughout the Senate. Pat is a graduate of the Georgetown University Law Center, with an LL.M. in taxation. He received his J.D. from the University of Toledo College of Law, and is a graduate of American University, with degrees in political science and economics.

Prior to joining the Finance Committee staff, Pat served as assistant counsel on the Select Revenue Subcommittee of the House Committee on Ways and Means. While there, Pat was responsible for leading hearings on intercompany transfer pricing, Internal Revenue Service collection and enforcement. Before that, he was an attorney with the Internal Revenue Service's Office of Chief Counsel.

I know the members of the Senate Finance Committee join me in gratitude for Pat's sage advice on tax policy matters. His efforts have helped to shape the legislative agenda for tax administration and tax reform. He cares deeply about these issues and the effect they have on hard-working Americans. With his ever-meticulous style, Pat has helped me to delve into the important issue of the ``tax gap,'' energy tax incentives, tax cuts for individuals and small businesses, and taxpayer rights.

Pat also helped me develop the idea of extending the time period during which Americans could make tax-exempt contributions to help victims of the tsunami disaster in 2005. This change helped facilitate a floodgate of tax-exempt contributions for these victims.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Pat Heck for his many years of outstanding service and in wishing him well for the future.

Mr. President, as the Christmas season approaches, it is important to pause and reflect on the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform make for us every day.

Fully 1.4 million American service men and women have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, or both. Nearly 30,000 troops have been wounded in action.

In September, I took a trip to Iraq. I was so impressed by what an amazing job our troops are doing. I met many Montanans from small towns like Roundup and Townsend. Despite all of the hardships that they face--all the danger--they keep at it every day. I saw firsthand what a heavy burden our troops bear for all of us.

Today, one small way to support them in their efforts is to make the Tax Code a little more troop-friendly. We can extend the special tax rules that make sense for our military that expire in 2007 and 2008. And we can eliminate roadblocks in the current tax laws that present difficulties to veterans and servicemembers.

For example, family members of fallen soldiers killed in the line of duty receive a death gratuity benefit of $100,000, but the Tax Code restricts the survivors from contributing this benefit into a Roth IRA. Today we can make sure that the family members of fallen soldiers may take advantage of tax-favored accounts.

Another hazard in the tax laws impeding our disabled veterans is the statute of limitations for filing 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. But the bad news is that many of these disabled veterans get ambushed by a statute that bars them from filing a tax refund claim. Today, we can 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 bracket soldiers. Their income needs to count towards computing the earned income tax credit, or EITC. But the provision that makes EITC work for combat troops expires at the end of 2007. The EITC is a very beneficial tax provision available to working Americans. And it makes no sense to deny it to our troops. Today we can make combat duty income count for EITC purposes and make this change to the Tax Code permanent.

I should mention that these tax provisions are fully paid for. A change in the Tax Code makes sure that any individual relinquishing their U.S. citizenship is still on the hook to pay for their fair share of U.S. taxes.

A soldier's rucksack is heavy enough as it is without loading it down with tax burdens. We owe the Americans fighting in our armed forces an enormous debt of gratitude.

That's why today I am asking for these important tax reforms. They are one small way that we can salute our men and women in uniform for all they do.

Also included in this package are a series of tax technical corrections. These noncontroversial provisions contain corrections to various tax acts from 1999, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006.

These technical changes include clarifications on the contributions of fractional interests in tangible property, modification of the active business definition under section 355, timing of claims for excess alternative fuel, and the treatment of losses on positions in identified straddles.

The technical corrections package also includes a number of clerical and conforming amendments, including amendments correcting typographical errors. This package makes sense and adds clarity to the code, which we desperately need as we head into the 2007 filing season.

Mr. President, in connection with S. 1974, the Pension Protection Technical Corrections Act of 2007, the ranking Republican member of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, and I have prepared a joint statement that contains an explanation of the bill. This explanation expresses the Senate Finance Committee's understanding of the provisions of the bill and serves as a reference in understanding the legislative intent behind this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that this joint statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in connection with H.R. 4839, the Tax Technical Corrections Act of 2007, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation is making available to the public a document that contains a technical explanation of the bill. This technical explanation expresses the Senate Finance Committee's understanding of the tax and other provisions of the bill and serves as a useful reference in understanding the legislative intent behind this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent to have this technical explanation printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the next vote is on AMT, paid for. We have had this vote several times. It requires 60 votes. I personally believe that the AMT relief we will be providing for here, so the taxpayers will not have to pay additional AMT for 2007, should be paid for. I don't think the votes are here. There are not 60 votes to pay for it. But once this goes down because it doesn't have 60 votes, it is then my expectation that the House will then vote for AMT not paid for so that we can get AMT passed this year. Americans will know they will not have to pay the additional AMT tax, done in a way that is satisfactory.

There is an hour allocated on this amendment, a half hour each side. Mr. President, I don't plan to take many more minutes than I have already consumed. I expect the other side will not either.

I will reserve the remainder of my time, with the expectation that I will yield back the remainder of my time. For now, I will reserve my time.

Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota has some comments about not beating a dead horse. I now yield 7 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

I might say, we should not beat a dead horse, that is clear, but also we should not look a gift horse in the mouth. We have an opportunity to resolve this and get it done. I urge us to vote quickly so we can dispose of this matter so the American taxpayers get their AMT relief very quickly.

I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.

I yield back our time.

Senator Harkin, I agree with you that this is an issue we need to address. As you know, I intend to work with Senator Grassley to move a Medicare reform package early in 2008. Given the importance of this issue, I am committed to working with you to find solutions that will assist these hospitals within the context of our Medicare efforts.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize a group of hard working student athletes from my hometown who continue to make history.

This past Saturday, on a mud soaked field in Savannah, TN, the Carroll College Fighting Saints football team claimed their fifth National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics championship in the past six seasons. The Fighting Saints overcame the weather and a tough squad from the University of Sioux Falls in South Dakota to prevail with a 17 to 9 victory.

Carroll College is a private, Catholic college in my hometown of Helena, MT. Carroll boasts an enrollment of about 1,500 students and is known around the country for its award-winning academic and preprofessional programs. Carroll is particularly strong in premedical, engineering, and nursing programs.

The Saints enjoy great support from the community of Helena and from folks all across Big Sky country. Fans pack Nelson Stadium on the Carroll campus each Saturday when there is a home game. Rain, snow, sub-zero temperatures--nothing will stop the Carroll faithful from coming out to cheer on their beloved Saints. I always look forward to being a part of the crowd whenever I can. The student cheering section known as the ``Carroll Crazies'' joins with parents and community members to create an atmosphere that is so energetic on game day you would think you were at a much larger school.

Like hard working folks all across Montana I value my money, but I was so confident that Carroll would be victorious in the title game that I made a little wager with my good friend from South Dakota, Senator Tim Johnson. The winner gets some delicious buffalo steaks my staff and I look forward to enjoying them. A special thanks to Senator Johnson for being such a good sport.

In the title game the Saints were led by running back Gabe Le, who slogged through the mud to pick up 116 hard-fought yards and scored Carroll's only two touchdowns on the day. For his efforts Le, a sophomore from Hayden, ID, was named the offensive player of the game. Le started the season as a backup but found his way into the starting lineup and rushed for over 100 yards in each of Carroll's four victories in the playoffs. The Carroll defense rose to the occasion and slowed down Sioux Falls' high-flying offense. Hard hitting linebacker Owen Koeppen, a junior from Florence, MT, took the honors as defensive player of the game. Koeppen has also been named to the 2007 American Football Coaches Association NAIA All-America Team.

The 2007 edition of the Fighting Saints was particularly dominant. They finished the season a perfect 15-0, running their record over the past 6 years to an astounding 79 to 6. The squad didn't surrender a touchdown until the eighth game of the season and gave up an average of less than five points per game. Carroll outscored their opponents by a combined total of 370 to 72.

Head football coach Mike Van Diest, a native of East Helena, came home in 1999 to coach the Saints. In addition to the five national titles, the Saints have won eight straight Frontier Conference championships and made it to the semifinal round of the NAIA playoffs seven times under his direction. Van Diest is not only a fantastic coach who has built a winning football program; he is an even better person, husband, and father. Mike has taught his players many life lessons along the way. He preaches the importance of getting a quality education, the value of teamwork, and the need to give back to the community. This embodies the service mission of Carroll College and the school's motto, ``Not for school but for life.'' Coach Van Diest has a lifetime of respect and appreciation for the Carroll standard and tradition of excellence and the college is truly blessed to have him.

All of Carroll's athletic programs have enjoyed great success as of late. This fall the women's soccer team won the first ever Frontier Conference Championship and claimed their first ever victory at the NAIA national tournament. The men's and women's basketball team and the volleyball team have also won numerous conference championships in recent years and have represented the school proudly in regional and national tournaments. This record of excellence can be attributed to the fine student athletes that come to Carroll from towns small and large all across Montana and the Northwest. These individuals put it all on the line not only on the playing fields and courts but also in the classroom. I appreciate and admire this tradition of excellence in both athletics and academics. Many athletes achieve honor roll status and go on to experience success in their respective fields of study. The dedicated coaches and their staff have nurtured and helped these athletes to grow by putting in countless hours throughout the year to prepare for their respective seasons. Athletic director Bruce Parker also deserves recognition as he has helped to build and oversee the success of Carroll athletics.

Finally, I would like to congratulate the president of Carroll College, Dr. Tom Trebon, whose leadership and dedication have made Carroll the highly regarded institution that it is. I look forward to cheering on the Saints again in 2008 as they begin their quest for an unprecedented sixth national title. I know they will make Montana proud.

Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate is acting on S. 2436, a bill to clarify the term of the IRS Commissioner.

The Internal Revenue Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 provides that the President appoints the IRS Commissioner to a 5-year term. On the face of it, the Commissioner's term of office might seem quite clear. But lawyers in the administration and the Senate have disagreed over when the 5-year term begins and ends.

Specifically, there is dispute over whether the term of the IRS Commissioner follows the calendar or the person. Let me explain.

If the term follows the calendar, the tenure of the Commissioner begins on the same date every 5 years. For example, if one term ends on November 12, then the next term begins the next day on November 13-- whether or not a new Commissioner has been confirmed.

This arrangement provides certainty for the Commissioner's term. It allows for planning and continuity of leadership. It minimizes the ability of an administration to play games with the timing of the term by waiting to fill a vacancy.

If the term follows the person, then the tenure of each Commissioner begins on the date of that individual's appointment. Under this scenario, a President deliberately could wait to appoint a new Commissioner until right before the end of the President's term, leaving the next President to inherit an appointee whom the new President did not choose.

While the President waited, the IRS could be without a permanent Commissioner indefinitely. That would put tax administration at risk.

There is another reason why it is important to clarify the term of the Commissioner. Ambiguity in the term could lead taxpayers to question whether the Commissioner is legitimately in office. And thus ambiguity could call into question the Commissioner's authority to enforce the tax laws.

For example, if the term arguably ended in November, but the Commissioner signed a tax pronouncement the next month, in December, then a taxpayer might challenge the Commissioner's authority to act. Tax administration could be compromised. Taxes that are legally owed might not be collected.

Staff for the Treasury and the Senate gave this issue much thoughtful discussion. We received credible legal opinions on both sides. We need to resolve the tenure of the term before the Senate confirms another Commissioner.

To resolve the differences of interpretation, I worked with the administration to develop the language in this bill. The ranking Republican member of the Finance Committee, my friend, Senator Chuck Grassley, is the principal cosponsor. I am advised that the President and the Treasury Secretary both agree that this legislation is necessary to resolve any concerns over the term of the Commissioner.

Upon enactment of this legislation, the Finance Committee and the full Senate will be able to take further necessary steps to confirm a new Commissioner. The IRS needs strong leadership for the upcoming filing season and beyond.

I thank my colleagues for their support of this legislation to clarify the term of the IRS Commissioner.

Mr. President, the legislative history of this provision is inextricably tied to the legal opinions of distinguished counsel for the Senate, the Justice Department, and the Congressional Research Service. The opinion of the Senate Legal Counsel reflects the motivations of this Senator in advancing this legislation. And the opinions of the Justice Department and the Congressional Research Service are essential to understanding the need for this legislation. Mr. President, I commend to my colleagues the legal opinions prepared by the Senate Legal Counsel, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, and the Congressional Research Service's American Law Division.

Mr. President, they say that ADM William ``Bull'' Halsey, who commanded the Pacific Fleet in World War II, once said:

There aren't any great men. There are just great challenges

that ordinary men like you and me are forced by circumstances

to meet.

Today, the circumstances around energy policy provide us another set of challenges. Today, we will see whether we can rise to meet them.

Prices for gasoline, heating oil, electricity, and natural gas have accelerated upward. Since the Senate last considered energy tax legislation in June, oil prices have soared by $30 a barrel. Energy costs have hit working families particularly hard.

Nearly every week, the news reminds us of the fragility of our energy supply, whether it is trouble in South America or Africa or in the Middle East.

As well, people have increasingly acknowledged the challenge presented by the link between energy use and global warming.

To help address these challenges, I am pleased that the Senate will vote today on energy tax incentives designed to promote clean and sustainable energy.

Energy tax policy is not new territory for the Finance Committee. In 2005, the committee designed tax incentives for that year's major Energy bill. And last December, we enacted energy tax provisions as part of the end-of-the-year package.

We are building on that strong foundation today with additional tax incentives. Most of those incentives were approved by a 19 to 5 vote in the Finance Committee this past June.

We did not get 60 votes on the Senate floor in June. But the energy crisis has not subsided. And so we are back here today with an even stronger package of energy tax incentives.

The energy tax proposal before us today continues our commitment to clean energy and renewable fuels. The amendment extends existing tax incentives for solar power, wind power, fuel cells, and energy- efficient homes and buildings. And we provide more than $2 billion for renewable energy bonds.

But we need to go further. And we do in this proposal. We advance three areas critical to our nation's energy future: cellulosic ethanol, hybrid cars, and coal sequestration.

Ethanol made from corn has become familiar territory. Now cellulosic ethanol is the new frontier to explore. This bill proposes a production tax credit of up to $1.00 a gallon for up to 60 million gallons of cellulosic fuel produced from sawgrass, agricultural wastes, and other biomass.

Hybrid cars provide a tremendous opportunity to make our transportation sector cleaner. A high-mileage car with no emissions is territory well worth exploring. Our proposal calls for a new $3,500 credit for plug-in vehicles.

America has vast reserves of coal. But we have concerns about global warming. It is thus imperative that when we use our coal, we need to try to prevent carbon dioxide from escaping into the atmosphere.

Our proposal would provide tax credits for capturing carbon dioxide emitted from industrial use of coal. The proposal also would provide accelerated depreciation for new dedicated pipelines used to transport CO2 from an industrial source to a geologic formation for permanent disposal. A proposal to encourage the construction of additional refinery capacity is also included.

We do our work in a fiscally responsible way. Lower budget deficits help to keep interest rates low. That helps to make the economy more competitive. Paying as we go may be a tough task. But the proposal contains offsets that are fair and economically sound.

We propose to simplify and improve the tax code by eliminating the distinction between ``foreign oil and gas extraction income'' and ``foreign oil-related income.''

We propose to withdraw the tax breaks under section 199 from the large oil companies. There is strong evidence that the boost from section 199 that the Senate envisioned when we enacted the JOBS Act in 2004 has not been realized.

We have heard from the major oil companies. But the majors collected over a half a trillion dollars in profits since 2001, and they are on track to collect up to a trillion dollars in profits over the next 10 years. The Joint Economic Committee has assured us that these provisions will have no affect on consumer prices for gasoline and natural gas in the immediate future.

The proposal before us today drops a severance tax on the production of crude oil and natural gas from the Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico. That severance tax was contained in the Senate Finance Committee-passed bill but is not in the proposal on which we will vote today.

Here is the territory that we are in: Gas prices are well over $3. The price of a barrel of oil is hovering around $90 a barrel. And concern about global warming is growing.

If we do not move forward today, Americans will look back and ask who blocked energy legislation. And they will be astonished. They are not going to understand how good policy designed to address one of the greatest challenges facing our country--some call it a crisis--was blocked by good Senators in December of 2007.

The proposal before us today will address the challenge. It addresses today's energy policy circumstances. So I urge my colleagues to meet the challenge and vote in favor of this sound energy package.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time I am talking not be charged against the time for debate with respect to the Lugar-Lautenberg amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 3660, and ask unanimous consent that once the amendment is reported by number, I be recognized to speak for up to 5 minutes, and that at the conclusion of my statement, the amendment be withdrawn.

That is fine as long as the time is not being charged.

Mr. President, more than 200 years ago, Richard Whately, an English logician, said:

A man is called selfish not for pursuing his own good, but

for neglecting his neighbor's.

Not only does our current Cuba policy make it difficult to pursue our own good, we are also guilty of neglecting the good of one of our closest neighbors.

Today I am offering an amendment to enable America's farmers and ranchers to sell their wheat, potatoes, and dairy products to a neighbor only 90 miles away and a market of 11 million consumers. That market, of course, is Cuba.

In the year 2000, Congress authorized limited sales of food and medical goods to Cuba under the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act, otherwise known as TSREEA. That law permitted United States farmers and ranchers to engage in cash-based sales of their goods to Cuban buyers.

Under this new law, our agricultural trade with Cuba prospered. At its peak, American farmers and ranchers, including those from Montana, sold over $400 million worth of peas, beef, and wheat to Cuba in 1 year. In fact, in the year 2003, I led a trade mission to Cuba and walked away with a $10.4 million deal for Montana. Cuba bought $10.4 million of Montana wheat, beans, and peas. I went back a year later for $15 million worth of Montana goods. But then things changed. In 2005 the Treasury Department issued rules to stymie such sales. Under the guise of clarifying the intent of Congress, the Treasury Department instead undermined the express will of Congress by restricting the ability of U.S. farmers and ranchers to engage in cash-basis sales. Specifically, the new Treasury rule requires Cuban buyers to pay for their goods before they leave U.S. ports. What is the effect of that? That converts the goods to Cuban assets, which makes them vulnerable to seizure in American ports to satisfy unrelated American claims against the Cuban Government.

In order for American farmers and ranchers to sell their wheat, beef, and pork to Cuba, they must work with foreign banks, and surrender a portion of their profits to costly fees. Not surprisingly, since Treasury's rule, cash-basis sales of agricultural products to Cuba have slowed to a trickle. It made implementation of Montana's 2004 agreement with Cuba virtually impossible.

I think I know the intent of Congress. I was here when that act was passed. I can assure you that we do not need Treasury's ``clarification.'' Congress did not approve legislation to expand trade with Cuba with the expectation that the administration would seek to restrict it. Congress does not approve legislation to enable the sales of products by our farmers and ranchers, while at the same time making it impossible, by the Treasury Department, for them to receive payment.

These rules have continued to stifle the ability of farmers to sell their products to Cubans on a cash basis. They have encouraged foreign banks to take a cut of every United States ag deal with Cuba. They have required farmers and ranchers to wait weeks and months to get a license to travel to Cuba to meet potential buyers. They prevent Cuban buyers, who want to come to this country to meet with producers, who are going to buy the American products, from entering our country.

This amendment would change that. It restores the true intent of Congress. It simplifies the cash transactions, and expands opportunities for U.S. farmers and ranchers. It enables direct transfers from American banks to Cuban banks. It allows American farmers and ranchers to travel to Cuba to sell their products, and it encourages Cuban buyers to come to the United States to see our first- class products for themselves.

These provisions are plain, simple, common sense. These provisions are sound policy. I had hoped we could have a discussion and a vote on this amendment. But, unfortunately, some Members of this body have threatened to hold up the farm bill if we include, or even vote on, these important provisions.

Amendment No. 3660 to Amendment No. 3500 Withdrawn.

In the interest of moving the farm bill forward, it is with deep regret that I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. President, within the Treasury Department is a Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Internal Revenue Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 provided that the Commissioner is appointed to a 5-year term.

This bill, co-sponsored by my good friend and ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Chuck Grassley, clarifies that the term of the Commissioner is a 5-year term, determined by reference to a 5-year term beginning with the term commencing on November 13, 1997.

This proposal is effective as if included in the amendment made by section 1102(a) of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998.