Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce legislation with Senator Mike Crapo, House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, and Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson to help open a promising market to American exports. That market is Cuba.

For too long, we have maintained ideologically driven restrictions that have undermined our export competitiveness in a market 90 miles away from us.

Just beyond our shoreline, our trading partners--especially Canada and China--are making multi billion-dollar investments in a Cuban economy that is growing at a rate of 7 to 12 percent per year. But the United States just stands by while these and other countries capitalize on opportunities in our own backyard.

Our economic policy toward Cuba simply is not working. This bill changes that.

The greatest opportunities exist in Cuba's agriculture sector. When Congress passed legislation allowing food and medicine sales to Cuba in 2000, some people said Cuba would never buy. Fidel Castro himself predicted that Cuba would buy ``not one grain'' from the United States.

But Mr. Castro was wrong. Agricultural sales happened. In 2004 alone, Cubans bought more than $375 million in American agricultural products. And, today, nearly every state in the union wants to get into the largest agriculture market in the Caribbean.

I have worked tirelessly to market Montana's high quality agriculture products, and it has paid off. In 2003, I inked a $10 million deal with Cuba. After we completed that deal, I went back to Havana and signed another deal--for $15 million. We have sent Montana wheat, beans and peas to Cuba, and that is just the beginning.

But it has not been easy. In 2005, the Treasury Department issued a rule to undermine the will of Congress. In landmark legislation, Congress in 2000 facilitated agriculture exports to Cuba by authorizing the use of cash basis sales. But the Treasury rule made such transactions impossible. Instead, sellers had to resort to foreign letters of credit, which are time-consuming, complicated, and expensive, especially for smaller exporters.

The Treasury rule stunted what had been meteoric growth in American agriculture exports to Cuba. This rule flies in the face of the law, and it will not stand.

Today's bill overturns the Treasury rule. It clarifies that not only do we intend to let these cash basis sales go forward, we mean to expand and promote them. This bill also ensures that exporters and commodity groups looking to get into the Cuban market get help from the Department of Agriculture. And it would require our Agriculture Department to promote American agricultural exports for Cuba.

Increased agriculture sales will allow Cubans to become familiar with more and more American branded food products. But a little-known provision of U.S. law--known as section 211--invites Cuba to withhold trademark protection from these and other American food exports. Today's bill also addresses that problem.

Section 211 bars U.S. courts from hearing claims of foreign nationals to trademarks similar to or associated with expropriated properties. It also forbids the United States from allowing foreign nationals to register or renew such trademark rights. In other words, it denies trademark protection to Cuban assets. If we are not going to recognize Cuban brands, why should Cuba, in the future, recognize American brands?

The World Trade Organization has already struck down section 211 as inconsistent with U.S. international trade obligations. It is time for this Congress to do the same. My bill repeals this wrong-headed and WTO-inconsistent provision. It ensures the continued security of thousands of American-owned trademarks already registered in Cuba.

I am a big proponent of getting American food products into Cuba. But I also fundamentally believe that we should never use food and medicine as a weapon against a people, no matter what we think of their government.

Many of my colleagues agree with me on this. This is why Congress, in the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act, authorized medicine and medical supplies sales to Cuba. But, at that time, we didn't get it quite right. We passed a law with good intent but loaded it up with so many restrictions that we have made medical sales to Cuba more difficult than medical sales to Iran or North Korea.

My bill will correct this lopsided and inhumane policy. It will allow Cubans access to our medicines and medical products--which are the best money can buy--on the same terms that we offer to other regimes. There is no sound reason to deny our products to our Cuban neighbors but allow such sales to Iran and North Korea.

I have taken Montana farmers and ranchers to Cuba to explore export opportunities. But such opportunities are rare because our government, with limited exceptions, does not permit travel to Cuba. And those exceptions are so riddled with red tape as to discourage applicants from making use of them.

Many Americans are ready and willing to travel to Cuba, and not just to make agriculture sales. Religious organizations have deep roots on the island--since before the Castro government. They are a lifeline, bringing hope, help, and brotherhood to their counterparts in Cuba. American academics and professionals engage in thoughtful exchanges of research and ideas. American students visit with Cuban students, and they learn lessons a teacher cannot imbue.

Nearly everyone in Cuba has a dear friend or relative living in the United States. Tens of thousands of Cubans who found their way to America save their hard earned dollars on frequent trips home, their bags packed with medicine, vitamins, and clothing.

Rather than encourage these meaningful contacts between Cubans and Americans, our government stifles our interaction. Rather than unite the Cuban family, our government seeks to divide it further.

Americans do not benefit from this policy. The Cuban people do not benefit from this policy. Only those who seek to keep Americans and Cubans apart benefit from our misguided policy of isolation.

It is time to reach out to the Cuban people. It is time to restore Americans' fundamental right to travel anywhere they want. It is time to lift the travel ban.

I am proud of our bill. It spells out the right policy during this fundamental transition in Cuba. It helps farmers and ranchers in Montana and elsewhere seek opportunities in a nearby market. And it affords our citizens the opportunity to spread American generosity, assistance, and values to Cuba.

I look forward to working with Senator Crapo, Chairman Rangel, Congresswoman Emerson, and others to put our trade relationship with Cuba on the right path.

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

Yesterday, the Finance Committee passed the Energy Advancement and Investment Act. That measure passed by a vote of 15 to 5. That is a very broad-based, bipartisan majority for the Finance Committee amendment that is now pending on this energy bill.

It is a major amendment. The committee spent a lot of time trying to figure out the best way for America to turn the corner, for the United States to begin to wean ourselves away from OPEC, to wean ourselves away from our reliance upon foreign oil, to try to enhance our national security, make the United States a little more able to determine its own destiny with respect to energy.

In doing so, we therefore also created lots of incentives for American production of renewables, for renewable energy, conservation, hybrid automobiles, hybrid plug-ins, cellulosic ethanol--a whole multitude of ways to help America become much more self-sufficient and, hopefully, therefore, be able to get our gasoline prices down a little bit because at the current time we very much are in the throes of big oil's control as to what they charge at the gas pump. This is a very thoughtful amendment. We spent a lot of time trying to put all this together.

The Finance Committee amendment includes a compromise on the topic of Senator Kyl's amendment; that is, renewable diesel. There are a lot of offsetting interests here, to be honest about it, from different parts of the country. Some are more concerned about biodiesel produced from products such as soybeans; others are much more concerned about renewable diesel produced by other products that could be organic products. In trying to get that balance put together, the goal is the same, which is to displace foreign oil.

I hope, therefore, that the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona is not agreed to because the effect of it will be not to displace a good bit of foreign oil, which is contrary to the main point of the underlying legislation.

Under current law, there is a $1-a-gallon credit for renewable diesel, including that produced with animal fats. There is also a $1- per-gallon credit for biodiesel, which is made from soybeans and other seeds. The committee amendment extends both of these credits for 2 years, until 2010; otherwise, they will expire at the end of next year.

The Senator from Arizona appears to be concerned that renewable diesel coprocessors--such as Conoco, for example--will increase the cost of consumer goods. He thinks consumer goods are going to go up as a consequence of our assistance for renewable diesel. He argues that the price of animal fats to be used in making renewable diesel, which are also used in making soap, will drive up the cost of those consumer goods.

I might say that fancy term ``coprocessors'' includes companies such as ConocoPhillips, which will use some of its existing infrastructure to produce renewable diesel. That is true.

The Senator from Arizona also appears to be concerned about the size of the subsidy--$1 per gallon--for this fuel. I might say that this was a question which members of the committee were concerned with. There are those who thought that biodiesel would be in competition with renewable diesel, so we worked to find a way to work together to reach a balance. This is a compromise we worked out: the dollar credit for each, but in addition, the committee capped the tax credit for renewable diesel coprocessors at 60 million gallons per facility. We put a cap on it. Another way to say it is that once that cap is reached, then the $1-per-gallon credit will no longer be available. We have a limit. We are cognizant of the points made by the Senator from Arizona.

We also commissioned a study on the effects of energy tax incentives on consumer goods. The 60-million limitation is the same as the definition used for a small producer of biodiesel or ethanol. Now, is 60 million a magic number? No. But it is a standard used in current law. That is why we took it. It is not something pulled out of thin air. One might ask: Should the $1 subsidy remain current law for good? My answer is, probably not. This is a bold step in the sense that we are trying to push-start and help kick-start renewables and alternative energies. We don't know if these incentives are exactly

right. They are probably not exactly right, but they are the best we could come up with at this time, and we think that probably they will work pretty well, but we will have to come back and revisit them. Some are not going to work very well, some will be increased and some will be decreased.

I say all that because the committee amendment before us extends this $1 for each--that is, for biodiesel and renewable--for just 2 more years. It is not a 5-year or a 10-year extension. It is not a permanent provision. It is just for 2 years. It will sunset in 2 years. That is contrary to most of the recommendations we have been getting from industry across the board; namely, they like 5-year incentives toward capital needs. A couple years, 3 years; 1 year is not enough, 2 years is not enough. We extended most of these credits on renewables and alternatives for 5 years. Section 485, which is renewable credits, is extended for 5 years, but we limited this to just 2 years as an extension because we are not as confident that is what the exact provision should be.

So I hope this amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona is not agreed to. The underlying Finance Committee amendment, which is pending, we thought it through the best we could. We think it is balanced. We think it is fair. Therefore, we hope it is sustained. Let me restate that every gallon of renewable diesel produced is a gallon of foreign oil displaced, which I think is pretty important.

I appreciate the efforts of my good friend from Arizona, but I think by and large they are not well placed.

I understand there are a couple of others who wish to speak on our side. How many minutes would the Senator from Iowa like to speak? For 5 minutes. Senator Lincoln, about the same.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to each Senator who wants to speak, and I first yield to the Senator from Iowa, my good friend, Senator Grassley.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Arkansas 5 minutes.

Madam President, the Senator from Arizona seeks to strike the provision of the underlying Finance Committee amendment--frankly, the amendment package which the committee voted to report by a vote of 15 to 5. The underlying amendment before us extends for 2 years the $1- per-gallon credit for renewable diesel, including diesel produced from animal fats. That credit is in current law. It is only 2 years old. We should give it time to work.

Under the language in the underlying Finance Committee amendment, we will revisit subsidies for most fuels, including this one, in the year 2010. The bottom line is we want to displace foreign oil imports--that is the goal--and every gallon of renewable diesel produced is a gallon of foreign imports displaced.

I urge my colleagues to help decrease foreign oil imports and oppose the Kyl amendment.

I yield the remainder of my time.

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

First, let me begin by reminding the Senate why we are here today. We want a strong energy policy. I think most Senators agree that the underlying bill, plus the Finance Committee bill, moves this country very much in the right direction, making us less dependent upon OPEC. It enhances national security. It will move us more toward alternative and renewable fuels, conservation, cellulosic ethanol, and also clean coal technology. This is a very good bill.

It is important to remind ourselves why we have these provisions that are the subject of the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona. We have to pay for what we do here. It is something called pay-go. Essentially, whenever we decrease taxes--and that is what the underlying Finance Committee bill does, it decreases taxes; it gives incentives to lots of different organizations to help develop new technologies, this is a tax-decrease bill--we also, under our rules, have to raise revenue the same amount that we decrease revenue.

We are here today to debate the offsetting amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona. Basically, should we pay for what we are doing? That is the basic question.

I say that is the basic question because it is one that offers no alternative. He just wants to strike the provisions that raise revenue in this bill to pay for other things, to pay for the tax decreases. So on a net basis, it is zero. Some like to say this is a tax increase bill. It is not. It is a net zero--zero-zero.

So the Senator from Arizona is not suggesting any alternative. He just says, no, we do not pay for what we are trying to do here. I think this body all agrees we need to pay and should pay for what we do. The question is whether this is a proper pay-for. I remind my colleagues that this full committee amendment, which includes the provisions which are the subject of the amendment of the Senator from Arizona, passed the committee by a vote of 15 to 5--a very strong, bipartisan vote. Many Senators believed--15 Senators believed--this is proper. It is right to have these provisions in this legislation.

We clearly do not want to increase the deficit. If the Senator's amendment passes, and these incentives for clean energy remain, it will have an effect of increasing the deficit.

Let's go in a little more detail about these offsets. The first is the section 199. What is that? I think all of our colleagues remember that several years ago--basically prior to 2004--the United States had a program called FSC-ETI. That was a program placed to give incentives for companies to manufacture products that are shipped to foreign countries. It was an incentive for domestic manufacturers to ship products overseas. The World Trade Organization ruled that this incentive violated WTO rules. The Europeans have something similar. They just constitute it a little differently, so they are able to have their stimulus for their exports that go overseas. But ours was ruled illegal by the WTO.

So what did we do about that in the Congress? We decided we were going to enact this section 199. What is that? Basically, it gives a deduction for domestic manufacturers, and it is phased in. When fully phased in in 2010, it will allow 9 percent of qualified production activities income to be deducted.

Well, here we are today saying: Well, for the five major oil companies, that 199 deduction for their production is no longer available to them. Some here suggest: Well, that is going to have the effect of increasing prices at the pump and it will maybe discourage domestic production in the United States.

Look at the record. Look at the facts. The facts are basically these. Since this provision went into effect--section 199--what has happened domestically in the United States? The major oil companies have gotten a significant break. It comes down to approximately $10 billion over 10 years. Domestic production by the five major oil companies has actually declined, even though they had this break, they got this additional incentive. Did it increase production in the United States? No, it did not increase production in the United States. It decreased production. Remember, this is a provision which applies to domestic production. It did not increase domestic production. Domestic production by oil companies actually decreased over this period of time.

I might also say that the Joint Committee on Taxation has done an analysis on this issue, and they demonstrated many of the points I am making.

So if you look at all the various factors that bear on this issue, you reach the conclusion that domestic production has gone down. So the argument that this one bill, this one portion will be responsible for decreasing domestic production is a specious argument. The facts show the opposite.

What determines gasoline prices charged at the pump? The Joint Committee on Taxation looked at this question, and it is their determination that--and it is obvious--the price at the pump is determined by an awful lot of complex factors. It is global demand. It is a lot of supply factors. I could go on as to all the factors the Joint Committee on Taxation believes contributes to this issue. To say there is a direct link that this provision is actually going to increase prices is just not accurate. It is just not going to happen.

It is a fallacious argument to try to discourage and confuse people into saying, therefore, this is not a good pay-for.

What are the other oil provisions? There are three of them. I already mentioned one. The second one is a loophole-closer.

Basically, this is a loophole identified by the Joint Committee on Taxation. In short, it has to do with credit American companies get for taxes paid overseas. For oil and gas production, there are two specific provisions relating to foreign taxes. One provision, called foreign oil and gas extraction income, or FOGEI, applies to extraction costs of oil and gas. The other, foreign oil related income, or FORI, applies to downstream distribution costs.

The long and short of it is that the Joint Committee on Taxation recommended changes to the system of credits against foreign taxes, a streamlining of FOGEI and FORI. And that's what the Finance Committee has done.

We closed this loophole, and it happens to raise over $3 billion dollars. This is a loophole closer. That is what this is. I cannot see any reason why anyone would have any problem with that.

In fact, the oil company people tell us it is probably a good thing to close this loophole. Why? Because it is so complicated to comply with.

Now, let's go to the third provision in this bill. This is the provision with respect to Outer Continental Shelf severance taxes. Clearly, constitutionally, the Congress always has the power to enact a tax. This is a 13-percent tax on production in the gulf. That is what it is. Producers can offset that tax with royalties they otherwise would pay for those leases in the gulf.

Now, the provision applies not just to the so-called years in question--1998 and 1999. It applies to a much broader range of leases in the gulf. This is not targeted to those 2 years people discuss. This is a severance tax that Congress has the power to levy in this area.

A couple points: The President himself enacted a higher level of royalties for all new leases at 16\2/3\ percent. On his own, he raised the royalty rate to 16\2/3\ percent for most new offshore deepwater federal oil and gas leases.

In this amendment, we are talking about a 13-percent severance tax. Is this a breach of contract? No. We have asked the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service to research this point for us because we do not want to do anything that is going to be unconstitutional and wrong. They say no, that basically Congress has the power to enact this provision. Under the broad public purposes, which is the basic standard, which is utilized here in the courts, Congress does have the power to do this. The question is, Is this a taking or confiscatory? No. This is not confiscatory. Nobody can make an argument this is confiscatory. So there is no takings, fifth amendment question here. Someone can raise it, but I think any reasonable person looking at this issue would say it is not a taking, it is not confiscatory, and second, this is not a breach of contract because we are saying: Hey, Congress has the power to enact the tax and credit royalties against it.

Do not forget, the President already said those folks, those companies are not paying enough. So he raised the royalty rate to 16\2/ 3\. We are saying 13 percent, in the form of a tax. We are trying to be reasonable. We are trying to do what is right. We came up with that 13 percent.

Another point that is kind of tricky about this amendment--it is kind of interesting about this amendment--essentially, it is delegating to the Secretary whether or not the oil companies are going to pay taxes. That is basically what the amendment says: Congress, you cannot decide; it is not your prerogative; it is up to the Secretary. Because he has this little clause in there that says: Unless the Secretary certifies, it is not going to increase prices. Come on. The Secretary can say anything he wants to say in this area because it is so complicated. It is so complicated. We should not be giving such broad authority to the Secretary for him to determine whether this offset should be enacted. But that is what the Kyl amendment does. I think any reasonable person would say: Hey, that is not the right thing to do. We do not want to give the Secretary this authority. You guys--men and women in Congress--we elected you to do what is right. Basically, what is right is to enact these provisions.

So I, therefore, urge all of us--the body--let's keep our heads on straight. Let's keep our feet on the ground. This is common sense. Let's oppose this thing that does not make any sense.

Mr. President, I ask how much time remains on both sides?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New York, but I don't see him yet. So I yield the balance--11 minutes plus 5 is 16--so I yield 11 minutes to the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, and the remaining 5 to the Senator from New York when he appears on the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of my bill to improve the process for congressional consideration of International Social Security Agreements.

International Social Security Agreements eliminate dual Social Security taxes when Americans work overseas for U.S. companies, and protect benefits for workers who divide their careers between two countries. As a result, American workers and their companies save approximately $800 million annually in foreign social security taxes.

The current process for congressional disapproval of these agreements is invalid because it involves the unconstitutional use of a legislative veto. This fact has not been a problem, however, because Congress has never desired to reject an International Social Security Agreement. Indeed, we currently have 21 agreements with most of our top trading partners, such as Canada, Germany, and Japan. However, Congress needs to establish a constitutionally valid process for congressional consideration and either approval or rejection of International Social Security Agreements, similar to the process used for other agreements and treaties.

The bill I am introducing today establishes such a process so that these important agreements can receive full consideration in the Congress. If either the House or the Senate determines that a particular agreement is a bad deal for U.S. workers or will harm the U.S. Social Security system, this bill will allow Congress to reject that agreement. Right now, that option does not exist under current law. This bill would fix that problem.

The bill would require that an ``approval resolution'' be introduced in both the House and the Senate once an agreement is submitted to Congress by the administration. The resolution will need to be approved by both Houses of Congress before an agreement can take effect. Of course, either House can also reject the approval resolution to prevent an agreement from taking effect.

The bill is cosponsored by Senator Grassley, ranking member of the Finance Committee. I appreciate the assistance that he and his staff provided in developing this legislation.

I urge the Senate to approve this bill to establish a constitutionally valid process for Congress to consider and either approve or reject International Social Security Agreements.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of my bill to improve the process for congressional consideration of International Social Security Agreements.

International Social Security Agreements eliminate dual Social Security taxes when Americans work overseas for U.S. companies, and protect benefits for workers who divide their careers between two countries. As a result, American workers and their companies save approximately $800 million annually in foreign social security taxes.

The current process for congressional disapproval of these agreements is invalid because it involves the unconstitutional use of a legislative veto. This fact has not been a problem, however, because Congress has never desired to reject an International Social Security Agreement. Indeed, we currently have 21 agreements with most of our top trading partners, such as Canada, Germany, and Japan. However, Congress needs to establish a constitutionally valid process for congressional consideration and either approval or rejection of International Social Security Agreements, similar to the process used for other agreements and treaties.

The bill I am introducing today establishes such a process so that these important agreements can receive full consideration in the Congress. If either the House or the Senate determines that a particular agreement is a bad deal for U.S. workers or will harm the U.S. Social Security system, this bill will allow Congress to reject that agreement. Right now, that option does not exist under current law. This bill would fix that problem.

The bill would require that an ``approval resolution'' be introduced in both the House and the Senate once an agreement is submitted to Congress by the administration. The resolution will need to be approved by both Houses of Congress before an agreement can take effect. Of course, either House can also reject the approval resolution to prevent an agreement from taking effect.

The bill is cosponsored by Senator Grassley, ranking member of the Finance Committee. I appreciate the assistance that he and his staff provided in developing this legislation.

I urge the Senate to approve this bill to establish a constitutionally valid process for Congress to consider and either approve or reject International Social Security Agreements.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following fellows, interns, and detailees of the staff of the Finance Committee be allowed on the Senate floor for the duration of the debate on the Energy bill: George Serletis, Brandon Perkins, Brett Youngerman, Suzanne Payne, Tom Kornfield, Avi Salzman, Grace Stephens, Alex Hart, and Elise Stein.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendments be temporarily set aside so I can

offer an amendment incorporating the Finance Committee-reported energy tax package.

Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I don't know why there is objection. I note while there is objection, I will talk about it until we get the objection cleared. This is a Finance Committee amendment passed out of committee. It is very straightforward. We have a copy. The Senator from Wyoming objected?

You will have time to look at it. We are not going to vote on it for a while. You will have lots of time to look at it. You will have time to look at it, believe me. This is a formality. It is good to bring it up now so we move the process along so the Senator and other Senators have time to look at it.

I inform the Senator I am only asking the amendment be brought up. There will be plenty of time. In fact, the Senator could speak as long as he wants and other Senators could speak as long as they want as we look at the amendment.

The ordinary course is the amendment is brought up. This has been fully vetted in the Finance Committee. Senators on both sides of the aisle passed it by a vote of 15 to 5. Members on the Republican side voted for it in committee.

I hope we can at least get the amendment up, and then we can work the usual Senate will.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be temporarily laid aside so I may offer an amendment incorporating the Finance Committee-reported energy tax package.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1704.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Grassley, Bingaman, Lincoln, Wyden, Schumer, Cantwell, and Salazar be added as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I have a long statement here which I am not going to read. Essentially this is the Finance Committee amendment. It goes a long way to help create incentives for renewables and for carbon sequestration, which is so important. It is a $20-billion-plus amendment over 10 years. It is fully offset. It is all paid for. It passed out of the Finance Committee by a vote of 15 to 5 earlier today. We spent a lot of time on this amendment and I think it is one of which the Senate can be very proud.

Basically, we are building on the strong foundation we already have with respect to tax incentives in our country. We continue our commitment to clean energy and renewables. We extend existing tax incentives for solar power, wind power, fuel cells, and energy- efficient homes and buildings. We create a tax incentive for transmission projects related to renewable energy projects and provide more than $3.6 billion over 10 years for renewable energy bonds. I might say this will benefit all of the States and also is of particular interest to my home State of Montana, and I know also to the Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley.

But we are going further than all that. We are also trying to extend the frontier in three areas that are critical to our Nation's energy future. One is cellulosic ethanol. We give significant incentives for cellulosic ethanol development; hybrid cars, significant incentives for the purchase of hybrid cars as well as plug-ins for hybrids; and third, carbon sequestration.

We propose a $1.11 per gallon tax credit for up to 60 million gallons of cellulosic fuel produced from sawgrass, agricultural wastes, and other biomass.

Hybrid cars provide an opportunity to make transportation cleaner-- high-mileage cars with almost no emissions. I think it is worth exploring. The amendment calls for a new credit for plug-in vehicles for $2,500 to $7,500.

We are also trying to take advantage of the vast reserves of coal we have in our country. We clearly also have great concerns about global warming. I think it is imperative that we use our coal to help meet our energy needs, but we also have to prevent carbon dioxide from escaping into the atmosphere.

There are various provisions here with respect to carbon sequestration. It depends upon whether it is known as a clean coal facility, but we use tax credits provided in this mark, which must capture and sequester at least 65 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions. That is with respect to power that is used to generate electricity. The utility industry tells us we can't go higher than 65 percent sequestration or captured sequestration for the utility industry. But we are going higher in other areas, and one is the coal- to-liquids sequestration. We extend the current 50-cent rate for coal- to-liquids to the year 2012. We also provide for a 75-percent capture of carbon for coal to liquids. This provision generated some controversy in the committee--some wanted it much higher, some wanted it lower. We felt that 72 percent is a pretty good compromise and a good place to begin.

I will also add that we provide 50 percent bonus depreciation for new dedicated pipelines that will be used to transport carbon dioxide from an industrial source to a geological formation for permanent disposal.

There are many other provisions in this amendment which I will not mention, except to say that this is a very great addition to the underlying package. We are turning the corner here. We are enacting legislation which will help move America away from the past and more toward the future. The future is renewable energies, alternative energies. It is conservation provisions which we also have in this bill. It is utilizing our coal reserves in the same way; that is, making sure the carbon is sufficiently captured. It is all paid for, and it is paid for by closing some loopholes in the coal and gas industry and also by repealing the reduction for section 199 for the major oil companies. This applies only to the five majors.

We also propose a tax on gulf oil production. Some will say: Gee, aren't we discouraging domestic production by doing that in America with those provisions? But I must point out that since section 199 was enacted several years ago, the actual domestic production in the United States has declined. A few years ago when that provision was enacted, the price of gasoline was much lower than it is now. It is much higher today. In addition to that, the projected profits for the oil and gas industry for the next 10 years are projected to be $1 trillion. If you look at the profits, if you look at how much gasoline prices have risen, and if you look at the decline in domestic production in this country over the last several years, even with those very high profits, it is pretty clear this offset will

not in any way diminish our prospects of domestic production and will not cause gasoline prices to increase. In fact, there is a study by the Joint Tax Committee which makes that very point; namely, since these provisions were put into effect a couple or 3 years ago, domestic production has not increased. It has not helped increase domestic production in the United States. Actually, domestic production has decreased.

So we feel this is a good package. It is paid for properly. It passed the committee by a vote of 15 to 5. I recommend this Finance Committee package to the full Senate. We will work our will on it over the next several days, but I think it is an excellent start.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, Senator Grassley and I recognize Webster Phillips, a distinguished executive at the Social Security Administration. Web is Associate Commissioner for Legislative Development. He is a dedicated public servant who has served his country for more than 30 years.

A native of Illinois, Web served in the U.S. Army in Vietnam. He began his career at Social Security in the local office in Alton, IL, as a claims representative. In 1980, he became an operations supervisor in the Rock Island, IL, Social Security office. In 1983, Web was selected as a management intern and completed a series of developmental assignments in the Chicago regional office and in SSA headquarters in Baltimore. In 1987, Web joined the staff of the Office of Legislation and Congressional Affairs, and has worked in a variety of assignments since that time.

Senator Grassley and I met Web in 1991, when he was assigned to the Senate Committee on Finance while participating in the LEGIS-Fellows program. In 1993, Web returned to the Finance Committee where he participated in the development of the legislation enacted by the Congress in 1994 that established SSA as an independent

agency. Since 1995, Web has been assigned to SSA's Legislative Affairs Office in Washington. He was selected to serve in his current position as Associate Commissioner of Legislative Development in February 1999.

The staff of the Finance Committee has had the pleasure of working with Web on many issues relating to Social Security during his tenure at SSA. He has always been resourceful, insightful, and forthcoming.

Web will retire from the Social Security Administration on July 3, 2007. He will be sorely missed by his colleagues and his many friends on the Hill. He will leave behind the numerous individuals he has mentored and encouraged over the years and who will now carry on this work.

Both Senator Grassley and I feel that it is important that we in Congress recognize the many women and men who devote their working lives to improving the lives of others. Career civil servants often do their work in quiet anonymity behind the scenes providing vital service to the American people. They are rarely recognized for their many contributions. Webster Phillips is one of those people. His record of leadership at the Social Security Administration and his commitment to providing the American people with effective and compassionate service is a record of which he can be justly proud.

Senator Grassley and I wish Web all the best in his retirement from Federal service and thank him for his many years of dedicated service.

Mr. President, I wish to honor Linda Davis and Brigid O'Connor. I want to recognize their public service, their courage, and their dedication. As public health nurses in Lake County, MT, they worked tirelessly since last year to manage the care of a person diagnosed with tuberculosis. They did this while continuing to ensure the safety of other Lake County residents.

Let me share with you a little more about Linda and Brigid.

Linda Davis has been the director of nursing services for the Lake County Health Department since 1991. Her vision and leadership have transformed Lake County's nursing services. Under her guidance, the office staff has grown from 3 to 15. And services have become more comprehensive.

For Linda, public health is about creating programs that address all the community's needs. Linda's resourcefulness and ingenuity have made her a success. She continues to overcome barriers and move forward. This current example of patient care shows that.

Linda is a dedicated public servant. She has worked in public health for 29 years, all in Lake County. And Linda is a fine example of Montana's education system. She is a graduate of the Montana State University-Bozeman School of Nursing.

Brigid O'Connor is the communicable and infectious disease nurse for Lake County. She has worked in public health for the last 10 years, all in Lake County. Before that, she worked in home health. Although Brigid is not originally from Montana, she has spent her entire nursing career in our great State. Brigid also received her degree from the Montana State University-Bozeman School of Nursing. Before moving to Montana, she spent some time in India working with leprosy patients. This experience moved her to pursue nursing. Brigid is a compassionate, driven, and dedicated professional.

The residents of Lake County are fortunate to be served by such outstanding nurses as Linda and Brigid.

The Lake County Health Department's handling of this case is exemplary. It worked because Linda and Brigid focused on patient education and community awareness. They balanced respect for a patient's rights with taking appropriate steps to protect public health.

Lake County is a low-incidence area. That means that these cases are uncommon. Typically, one patient a year is diagnosed with tuberculosis in Lake County. And that makes Linda's and Brigid's ability to react effectively even more impressive.

And people are recognizing Linda's and Brigid's handling of this case. The Montana Tuberculosis Officer is presenting the case at the Centers for Disease Control's annual meeting on tuberculosis.

This case exemplifies the creativity of individuals across Montana. It highlights their resourcefulness. The Lake County Health Department has been able to use emergency preparedness funds to help create an infectious disease response program. These funds have also allowed them to step up their after-hours capabilities.

Linda and Brigid worked with the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services in caring for this individual and the community. Responding to a challenge like tuberculosis requires cooperation, ingenuity, and hard work.

I am very proud, not only of Linda and Brigid's work, but of all of Montana's State and local health officials.

We are lucky in Montana. Even though we are a big State with a small population, we are well prepared to respond to such public health challenges because of our dedicated and capable public health professionals.

Working together, the Montana health care community has found ways to beat challenges like these, despite apparent obstacles.

We depend on our public health professionals to constantly come up with creative ways to respond to such challenges while continuing to provide high quality care for the sick.

Linda and Brigid are two such professionals. It is my honor to recognize them here today in the Senate. And it is an honor to be able to work with them to create a safe and healthy Montana.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend and colleague, Senator Grassley, in introducing legislation to preserve the corporate tax base.

The Federal Government taxes corporations. The tax law treats corporations as economic entities, and taxes them separately from the corporation's shareholders. And the tax law treats partnerships differently from corporations.

Recently, some private equity and hedge fund entities have sought to go public without paying a corporate tax. The bill that we introduce today would treat all publicly traded partnerships that directly or indirectly receive income from providing investment advisory or asset management services as corporations. The tax law ought to treat as corporations entities that function as corporations.

Congress enacted the publicly traded partnership rules in 1987 to preserve the corporate tax base. Congress was concerned that publicly traded partnerships might be able to enjoy the privilege of going public like a corporation without the corporate toll charge. The House committee report stated:

These changes [referring to the corporate minimum tax

included in the 1986 Act] reflect an intent to preserve the

corporate level tax. The committee is concerned that the

intent of these changes is being circumvented by the growth

of publicly traded partnerships that are taking advantage of

an unintended opportunity for disincorporation and elective

integration of the corporate and shareholder levels of tax.

Congress carved out an exception for those partnerships that receive 90 percent or more of their income from passive income. Passive income includes dividends, rents, royalties, interest, and the sale of capital gains. But Congress generally treated publicly traded partnerships that derive income from active businesses as corporations.

To emphasize that point, in 1987, the House committee report stated:

In general, the purpose of distinguishing between passive-

type income and other income is to distinguish those

partnerships that are engaged in activities commonly

considered as essentially no more than investments, and those

activities more typically conducted in corporate form that

are in the nature of active business activities.

This year, some private equity and hedge fund management firms are attempting to qualify for partnership tax treatment. They seek to do so even though they derive virtually all of their income from providing asset management and financial advisory services. These management firms argue that they are able to achieve this result by claiming that all of their income from asset management and investment advisory services is passive. But objective observers would say that this income actually arises from active businesses. Congress's intent in 1987 was to treat such publicly traded partnerships as corporations. In the legislation that we introduce today, we seek to ensure that Congress's original intent is carried out.

This legislation is also important to ensure that some corporations are not disadvantaged because they conduct business in the corporate form and pay taxes as a corporation. Asset management service and investment advisory partnerships provide the same types of active business services as their corporate competitors. Our tax system functions best when it is fair. The tax law ought to treat similarly situated taxpayers the same. Thus, these publicly traded partnerships should be taxed as corporations.

The legislation that we introduce today would clarify the purpose of the publicly traded partnership rules. Our bill would deny the ability of an active financial advisory and asset management business to go public and avoid a corporate level tax on a significant amount of its income.

Senator Grassley and I have asked the staff of the Treasury Department for their views on these transactions, how they plan to address this issue, and whether they think additional statutory changes are necessary to clarify the intent of the publicly traded partnership rules. If a statutory change is needed, then this legislation will accomplish that change. If a change is not needed, then this legislation does not alter the ability of Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service to issue guidance and enforce congressional intent.

I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Grassley and me to protect the original intent of Congress, to protect the tax base, and to treat similarly situated entities similarly. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and an explanation and reasons for change be printed in the Record.

There being no ojection, the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend and colleague, Senator Grassley, in introducing legislation to preserve the corporate tax base.

The Federal Government taxes corporations. The tax law treats corporations as economic entities, and taxes them separately from the corporation's shareholders. And the tax law treats partnerships differently from corporations.

Recently, some private equity and hedge fund entities have sought to go public without paying a corporate tax. The bill that we introduce today would treat all publicly traded partnerships that directly or indirectly receive income from providing investment advisory or asset management services as corporations. The tax law ought to treat as corporations entities that function as corporations.

Congress enacted the publicly traded partnership rules in 1987 to preserve the corporate tax base. Congress was concerned that publicly traded partnerships might be able to enjoy the privilege of going public like a corporation without the corporate toll charge. The House committee report stated:

These changes [referring to the corporate minimum tax

included in the 1986 Act] reflect an intent to preserve the

corporate level tax. The committee is concerned that the

intent of these changes is being circumvented by the growth

of publicly traded partnerships that are taking advantage of

an unintended opportunity for disincorporation and elective

integration of the corporate and shareholder levels of tax.

Congress carved out an exception for those partnerships that receive 90 percent or more of their income from passive income. Passive income includes dividends, rents, royalties, interest, and the sale of capital gains. But Congress generally treated publicly traded partnerships that derive income from active businesses as corporations.

To emphasize that point, in 1987, the House committee report stated:

In general, the purpose of distinguishing between passive-

type income and other income is to distinguish those

partnerships that are engaged in activities commonly

considered as essentially no more than investments, and those

activities more typically conducted in corporate form that

are in the nature of active business activities.

This year, some private equity and hedge fund management firms are attempting to qualify for partnership tax treatment. They seek to do so even though they derive virtually all of their income from providing asset management and financial advisory services. These management firms argue that they are able to achieve this result by claiming that all of their income from asset management and investment advisory services is passive. But objective observers would say that this income actually arises from active businesses. Congress's intent in 1987 was to treat such publicly traded partnerships as corporations. In the legislation that we introduce today, we seek to ensure that Congress's original intent is carried out.

This legislation is also important to ensure that some corporations are not disadvantaged because they conduct business in the corporate form and pay taxes as a corporation. Asset management service and investment advisory partnerships provide the same types of active business services as their corporate competitors. Our tax system functions best when it is fair. The tax law ought to treat similarly situated taxpayers the same. Thus, these publicly traded partnerships should be taxed as corporations.

The legislation that we introduce today would clarify the purpose of the publicly traded partnership rules. Our bill would deny the ability of an active financial advisory and asset management business to go public and avoid a corporate level tax on a significant amount of its income.

Senator Grassley and I have asked the staff of the Treasury Department for their views on these transactions, how they plan to address this issue, and whether they think additional statutory changes are necessary to clarify the intent of the publicly traded partnership rules. If a statutory change is needed, then this legislation will accomplish that change. If a change is not needed, then this legislation does not alter the ability of Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service to issue guidance and enforce congressional intent.

I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Grassley and me to protect the original intent of Congress, to protect the tax base, and to treat similarly situated entities similarly. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and an explanation and reasons for change be printed in the Record.

There being no ojection, the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. President I rise today to speak about S. 1496, the Pollinator Habitat Protection Act, which I introduced on May 24. Pulitzer Prize-winning insect biologist E.O. Wilson said the honeybee is nature's ``workhorse--and we took it for granted.'' That statement sums up the state of the Nation's honey bee.

Our Nation's honeybees are being affected by a phenomenon named colony collapse disorder, and the symptoms are baffling. Since October 2006, 35 percent or more of the United States' population of the Western honeybee--billions of individual bees--simply flew from their hives and disappeared.

We don't know what is causing their disappearance. The honeybee is an active pollinator for both agriculture and native plants. It is used commercially to pollinate crops across the country, and some crops, like apples and almonds, will not produce fruit without the assistance of the honeybee. My home State of Montana is the country's fifth largest honey-producing State. Without bees, Montana would not produce our famous huckleberries.

During busy years, a hive might make up to five cross-country trips, following the crop blooming cycles. Scientists are speculating that the bees are stressed from making cross-country journeys and are being attacked by viruses and parasites. Either way, this is an emergency situation, and we have to do something now.

That is why I am introducing the Pollinator Habitat Protection Act. This bill is simple and it makes sense. It is the right thing to do.

Through the use of the existing conservation programs in the farm bill, agricultural producers would receive incentives to rebuild natural habitat with flowering plants to benefit pollinators such as honey bees. For example, instead of planting straight grass, a producer could plant clover, alfalfa, or other native flowering plants on land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program.

Perhaps this bill's most attractive feature is that it does not cost additional money or create a new program. It simply requires existing conservation programs to acknowledge pollinator habitat as a conservation resource and rewards producers whose conservation practices are beneficial for pollinators.

When the budget is tight, it is better to improve existing programs rather than create new ones. This is a dramatic important improvement for our conservation programs.

It is not often we can protect our environment and increase producer's income at the same time. But that is exactly what this bill will do. This is one simple way to help out our honeybee population and give farmers another option to make money on their land.

As a honorary cochair of the Pollinator Partnership, I am honored to introduce this legislation. I thank organizations like the Coevolution Institute which are doing the right thing, by bringing a diverse group of people together from across the country to address this challenging issue.

I urge my colleagues to support S. 1496 the Pollinator Habitat Protection Act.

Mr. President, this week, we celebrate Flag Day, and in a few weeks we will celebrate the Fourth of July.

We ask a lot from our men and women in the armed services, and their sacrifices are essential to protecting our freedom here at home. One way to support them is to make the Tax Code a little friendlier to the troops.

That is why I am introducing the Defenders of Freedom Tax Relief Act of 2007. This bill would extend the tax rules favoring the military that expire in 2007 and 2008. It would also eliminate roadblocks in the current tax laws that present difficulties for veterans and servicemembers.

Our troops should fight against our Nation's enemies, not our Nation's Tax Code. Family members of fallen soldiers killed in the line of duty receive a death benefit of $100,000. But the Tax Code restricts the survivors from contributing this benefit into a tax-favored retirement account. My bill would exempt this benefit from the current restrictions on contribution amounts and income limitations. That way, the family members of fallen soldiers could take advantage of tax- favored Roth IRA accounts.

Lower ranking, lower income soldiers do most of the heavy lifting in combat situations. Under the current Tax Code, their income is not counted in computing the earned income tax credit, or EITC. The EITC is a beneficial tax provision available to working Americans. It makes no sense to deny it to our troops. My bill would count combat duty income for EITC purposes, and it would make this change to the Tax Code permanent.

My bill would also eliminate the confusion that surrounds State gifts to servicemembers. Military members should not be caught in the crossfire of competing Tax Code interpretations.

Another hazard facing our troops in the Tax Code is the statute of limitations for filing a tax refund. Most Veterans' Administration disability claims filed by veterans are quickly resolved. But thousands of disability awards are delayed due to lost paperwork or the appeals of rejected claims. Once a disabled veteran finally gets a favorable award, the good news is that the disability award is tax-free. But many of these disabled veterans get ambushed by a statute that bars them from filing a tax refund claim. My bill would give disabled veterans in this situation an extra year to claim their tax refunds.

Our men and women in uniform provide an invaluable service to our country. They, along with their families, make sacrifices and live a demanding lifestyle. The Tax Code should not add to their hardships as they move from assignment to assignment around the globe.

Protecting American interests around the world requires most of our troops to move a number of times during their career. Restricting favorable mortgage bond financing to only first-time homebuyers does not make much sense for them. Therefore, my bill would eliminate this restriction for veterans who served in the active military.

The bill would make permanent a provision that allows intelligence community employees to make use of the exclusion of gain on the sale of their home when they are assigned overseas or 50 miles away from their home.

A soldier's rucksack is heavy enough as it is without piling tax paperwork on top of it. My bill would help reduce paperwork.

My bill would treat differential pay as wages. This would make it easer for employers to contribute to a reservist's retirement plans. And it would eliminate the reservist's need to make estimated tax payments.

My bill would also make permanent certain taxpayer information reporting rules, so that the Social Security Administration and the Veterans' Administration could facilitate the administration of veteran needs-based pension and compensation programs.

A further roadblock for military service men and women is the 10- percent penalty triggered for early withdrawal from a qualified retirement plan. If reservists are called to active duty, the last thing that they should have to worry about is their 401(k) plan or IRA account. This provision would permit penalty-free early withdrawal. And it would give reservists 2 years from the time that they stop active duty to roll over their IRAs or 401(k) plans.

Small business employers are being asked to make sacrifices here at home. My bill would help.

Mobilization of Reserve personnel creates unexpected employee absences. This hits small businesses especially hard. Some employers voluntarily take on the added burden of eliminating any pay gap experienced by their reservist-employees. These employers pay the difference between the civilian salary and the military pay. In recognition of their patriotism, my bill would provide small businesses with fewer than 50 employees a tax credit of 20 percent of the differential pay, up to $20,000, for those small businesses that make differential payments to reservists called up to active duty.

This bill is fully paid for with a change in the Tax Code that makes sure that anyone relinquishing their U.S. citizenship is still on the hook to pay their fair share of U.S. taxes.

We owe the Americans fighting in our Armed Forces an enormous debt of gratitude. These important tax reforms are one small way of saluting them for all that they do. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.

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

Mr. President, this week, we celebrate Flag Day, and in a few weeks we will celebrate the Fourth of July.

We ask a lot from our men and women in the armed services, and their sacrifices are essential to protecting our freedom here at home. One way to support them is to make the Tax Code a little friendlier to the troops.

That is why I am introducing the Defenders of Freedom Tax Relief Act of 2007. This bill would extend the tax rules favoring the military that expire in 2007 and 2008. It would also eliminate roadblocks in the current tax laws that present difficulties for veterans and servicemembers.

Our troops should fight against our Nation's enemies, not our Nation's Tax Code. Family members of fallen soldiers killed in the line of duty receive a death benefit of $100,000. But the Tax Code restricts the survivors from contributing this benefit into a tax-favored retirement account. My bill would exempt this benefit from the current restrictions on contribution amounts and income limitations. That way, the family members of fallen soldiers could take advantage of tax- favored Roth IRA accounts.

Lower ranking, lower income soldiers do most of the heavy lifting in combat situations. Under the current Tax Code, their income is not counted in computing the earned income tax credit, or EITC. The EITC is a beneficial tax provision available to working Americans. It makes no sense to deny it to our troops. My bill would count combat duty income for EITC purposes, and it would make this change to the Tax Code permanent.

My bill would also eliminate the confusion that surrounds State gifts to servicemembers. Military members should not be caught in the crossfire of competing Tax Code interpretations.

Another hazard facing our troops in the Tax Code is the statute of limitations for filing a tax refund. Most Veterans' Administration disability claims filed by veterans are quickly resolved. But thousands of disability awards are delayed due to lost paperwork or the appeals of rejected claims. Once a disabled veteran finally gets a favorable award, the good news is that the disability award is tax-free. But many of these disabled veterans get ambushed by a statute that bars them from filing a tax refund claim. My bill would give disabled veterans in this situation an extra year to claim their tax refunds.

Our men and women in uniform provide an invaluable service to our country. They, along with their families, make sacrifices and live a demanding lifestyle. The Tax Code should not add to their hardships as they move from assignment to assignment around the globe.

Protecting American interests around the world requires most of our troops to move a number of times during their career. Restricting favorable mortgage bond financing to only first-time homebuyers does not make much sense for them. Therefore, my bill would eliminate this restriction for veterans who served in the active military.

The bill would make permanent a provision that allows intelligence community employees to make use of the exclusion of gain on the sale of their home when they are assigned overseas or 50 miles away from their home.

A soldier's rucksack is heavy enough as it is without piling tax paperwork on top of it. My bill would help reduce paperwork.

My bill would treat differential pay as wages. This would make it easer for employers to contribute to a reservist's retirement plans. And it would eliminate the reservist's need to make estimated tax payments.

My bill would also make permanent certain taxpayer information reporting rules, so that the Social Security Administration and the Veterans' Administration could facilitate the administration of veteran needs-based pension and compensation programs.

A further roadblock for military service men and women is the 10- percent penalty triggered for early withdrawal from a qualified retirement plan. If reservists are called to active duty, the last thing that they should have to worry about is their 401(k) plan or IRA account. This provision would permit penalty-free early withdrawal. And it would give reservists 2 years from the time that they stop active duty to roll over their IRAs or 401(k) plans.

Small business employers are being asked to make sacrifices here at home. My bill would help.

Mobilization of Reserve personnel creates unexpected employee absences. This hits small businesses especially hard. Some employers voluntarily take on the added burden of eliminating any pay gap experienced by their reservist-employees. These employers pay the difference between the civilian salary and the military pay. In recognition of their patriotism, my bill would provide small businesses with fewer than 50 employees a tax credit of 20 percent of the differential pay, up to $20,000, for those small businesses that make differential payments to reservists called up to active duty.

This bill is fully paid for with a change in the Tax Code that makes sure that anyone relinquishing their U.S. citizenship is still on the hook to pay their fair share of U.S. taxes.

We owe the Americans fighting in our Armed Forces an enormous debt of gratitude. These important tax reforms are one small way of saluting them for all that they do. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.

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

Mr. President, I honor a colleague, a friend, and a great Senator, Senator Craig Thomas.

No words that I can speak will ease the sadness of this loss. Nothing my colleagues and I say can fill the emptiness that his passing has left or lessen the pain that so many feel.

I feel compelled to speak of Senator Thomas not for the effect of my words. Instead, I speak to recognize the effect of his words, his actions, and his service.

His were words, actions, and service that have improved the lives and futures of Americans. His words and actions will leave a legacy long after our sadness passes.

Senator Thomas represented Wyoming effectively and with dignity. I was proud to work with him.

We both loved the open beautiful spaces of our home States, and we worked to keep them clean, safe, and sustainable. We collaborated to improve the Endangered Species Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

We also worked to safeguard our constituents' livelihoods-- establishing the wool trust fund, keeping open global beef markets, and making sure that our trading partners played by the rules.

We worked together to safeguard our natural resources, improve rural energy infrastructure, and plan for a sustainable energy future with clean coal technologies.

These and many other accomplishments will be Senator Thomas's legacy. It is a legacy for which he deserves recognition, remembrance, and honor. It is a legacy for which our Nation is grateful.

But many will remember Senator Thomas more for who he was than for what he did. They will remember someone with a quick wit, an easy smile, and a generous helping hand.

I will remember Senator Thomas as I met him when he first joined the Senate in 1989. Back then, I recognized in him something very familiar. Senator Thomas was a man of the American West. He embodied the values and the character of the people whom he represented.

You always knew where Senator Thomas stood. Like many in the West, Senator Thomas was quiet, unassuming, and unpretentious--but he was never intimidated.

He was gentle and decent. When he gave you his word, he kept it. And as we all saw in these final months of his life, when he had to, he could fight like hell.

That is the man I will miss and it is the man I wish to recognize today--an honorable Senator and a great man of the American West.

Mr. President, the history of Butte, Anaconda, and Walkerville is as bright and intricate as the people who live there. Stories of greed, danger, and power intermingle with values like hard work and loyalty, to weave a tapestry as rich as any city in America. As the Montana Historical Society has so richly shown, the history of Butte is the history of our country.

As America began to slowly mature from a budding nation to an international superpower, the growing pains became evident. Settlers, packing what little belongings they could fit into the legendary prairie schooners, began to gaze at the horizon and seek fame and fortune on the Western frontier. As the trails became longer, and the distance grew greater, the limits of one nation were pressed. Yet the powers of American ingenuity and our Nation's legendary can-do spirit kicked in. Samuel Morse learned how to communicate through code, and Alexander Graham Bell discovered how to talk through wires.

While these men showed great genius, without the sweat of working men and women these inventions would be nothing more than a footnote in history. But as miners extracted mountains of copper from the Earth's belly, telegraph and telephone wires began to crisscross our country. Suddenly, a letter that used to take days would now take minutes. Citizens on the eastern seaboard would know what was happening on the plains, and at last we truly were one Nation.

And at the heart of this was Butte, Anaconda, and Walkerville. Here, the gallow frames and the towering Anaconda Company smokestacks pierce the skyline as a monument to the men and women whose toil became the bedrock of our great Nation. Though faced with danger, and even death, these workers strapped on their boots every morning and from daybreak till night provided the fuel for a growing nation.

Faced with dire circumstance and physical harm, these workers developed a bond that none outside the mines could understand. They stood together through thick and thin, and truly were a family.

This bond took form in two of the Nation's most radical unions, the Western Federation of Miners, and the Industrial Workers of the World. Located in ``the Gibraltar of Unionism'', Butte and Walkerville, these unions waged a class warfare the likes of which is still the fodder for legends. The class war soon came to a raging boil after the Butte Granite/Speculator Mine fire, the worst hard-rock mining disaster in the Nation's history. Unions were busted, agitators dealt with, and the crushing hand of the ``company'' dealt a crippling blow to the workers.

Yet with the New Deal came new life for the unions. As the Federal Government guaranteed the right of workers to unionize, the strength of the men and women who worked the mines began to shine. In 1934, a 4- month strike, lead to the birth of the CIO, an organization that has become synonymous with unions, and workers' rights.

Now, as Butte, Walkerville, and Anaconda usher in the 21st century, these cities' special past will be immortalized forever. In 2006, the National Park Service recognized that this trio of cities' history of mining and labor should be remembered for generations and declared the district a National Historic Landmark. I was proud to work with many people from the area, and showing the determination of their ancestors, was able to make this landmark a reality. The district will be the largest National Historic Landmark in the West, covering the period from 1876 to 1934 and encompassing nearly 10,000 acres with over 6,000 contributing resources. And one woman, whose heart and soul was poured into this district, is Ellen Crain, Director of the Butte Public Archives. With the undeterred tenacity of the miners before her, Ellen worked for 14 long years to make this possible. Because of her hard work, the citizens in the district will also be able to reflect with pride on their past, as they work to uphold the cities' great tradition in the future.