Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mary Baker and Brett Youngerman, detailees with the Finance Committee, be granted floor privileges for the consideration of the prescription drug bill.

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

Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 123, I voted ``nay.'' It was my intention to vote ``yea.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote as it will not affect the outcome.

Mr. President, I rise to talk to you about an important resolution that the Senate adopted today: the Asbestos Awareness Week resolution. This resolution recognizes the first week in April as National Asbestos Awareness Week.

This resolution acknowledges the dangerous nature of asbestos. Importantly, it gives tribute to hundreds of thousands of people who have died from exposure.

To me, this resolution is very personal Deaths from exposure to asbestos are common in my home State of Montana--all too common. Libby, MT is a small community in the western part of Montana. Libby is a very unique place.

It is surrounded by the beauty and splendor of the Cabinet Mountains. But it is also plagued with sickness and disease. The extent of asbestos contamination in Libby, the number of people who are sick, the amount of people who have died from asbestos exposures just staggering.

The community of Libby suffers from asbestos related diseases at 40 to 60 times higher than the rest of the country. Folks in Libby are diagnosed with mesothelioma, the deadly form of cancer from asbestos, at 100 times higher than the average rate.

Mesothelioma recently took the life of a very dear friend of mine from Libby--Les Skramstad. Just a few weeks ago, I came to the floor to talk about Les and how he was an outspoken advocate for Libby.

Until the day he died, Les worked tirelessly to share his story and the story of Libby's quiet emergency.

The first night I met Les in January of 2000, he challenged me to help all those in Libby suffering from asbestos-related diseases. Les challenged me ``to do something.''

He said: Max, please, as a man like me--as someone's father too, as someone's husband, as someone's son, help me. Help us. Help us make this town safe for Libby's sons and daughters not even born yet. They should not suffer my fate too. I was a miner and

breathed that dust in. Everyday I carried that deadly dust home on my clothes. I took it into our house and I contaminated my own wife and each of my babies with it too. I just don't know how to live with the pain of what I have done to them.

If we can make something good come of this, maybe I'll stick around to see that, maybe that could make this worthwhile.

I told him I would do all that I could, that I wouldn't back down, and that I wouldn't give up. Les accepted my offer and then pointed his finger and said to me: I'll be watching, Senator.

I have kept my promise to Les and I have worked hard to help people in Libby. I will continue to do all I can to help Libby.

I know that now even though Les is not with us today he is still watching. Les is my inspiration.

Because of Les's work and other advocates in Libby, we launched the Center for Asbestos Related Diseases in Libby--called the CARD clinic. CARD has screened and provided health care to hundreds of Libby residents.

Screening is an essential part of making sure people get the help they need. Spreading the word about asbestos exposure is also vital to ensure that people who are sick get the treatment they deserve.

The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization is a leader in this fight. They work tirelessly to advocate on behalf of asbestos victims so that thousands more in the future should not suffer the same fate.

Along with the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, others in the Libby community such as Gayla Benefield and Dr. Brad Black have worked to educate people about the dangers of asbestos exposure.

Then there are also those who have left Libby, but continue to advocate on behalf of asbestos victims such as Margy Urnberg and Kenny and Karen Moss, all former residents of Libby and remarkable volunteers.

An asbestos awareness week will help spread the word about the deadliness of these fibers and bring relief to those who suffer from asbestos-related diseases. I will continue to fight for those like Les, whose lives have been taken by asbestos. I made a promise to Les and I won't stop until I have fulfilled that promise.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the senior Senator from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, in support of amendment No. 680. The substance of this amendment is what the Senate passed by a 94-to-3 vote as the minimum wage and small business tax bill on February 1.

This amendment would thus extend to hard-working Americans a long- overdue increase in the minimum wage. It is long past time when Congress should have increased the minimum wage.

Now some worry that an increase in the minimum wage would burden small

businesses. Smaller businesses employ a disproportionate share of workers earning the minimum wage.

Representatives of small businesses have therefore argued that any increase in the minimum wage should be accompanied by tax incentives targeted for small businesses in order to lower their costs.

Small business is particularly important in rural States like Montana. Rural communities generally do not have large employers. Rural families rely on small businesses for jobs.

The Finance Committee has jurisdiction over taxes. The committee held a hearing on January 10 entitled ``Tax Incentives for Businesses in Response to a Minimum Wage Increase.'' The committee heard from a variety of witnesses, including labor economists, small business owners, and tax experts.

Following that hearing, the committee held a markup on January 17. The committee reported an original bill called the Small Business and Work Opportunity Act of 2007.

That bill is a revenue-neutral bill containing a number of tax incentives for small businesses and businesses that hire minimum wage workers. The committee favorably reported the bill by unanimous voice vote. And the majority leader included that bill in its entirety in his amendment to the House-passed Fair Minimum Wage Act. That bill passed the Senate on February 1.

Now the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and I have included that bill in its entirety in our amendment to the House-passed supplemental appropriations bill, the U.S. Troops Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act.

The small business tax provisions included in this amendment will help small businesses to succeed. These provisions will spur investment and thus create jobs. They will provide greater opportunity for workers looking for a job. They all enjoy strong support.

To carry out day-to-day activities, small business owners are often required to invest significant amounts of money in depreciable property, such as machinery. The amendment would help business owners to afford these large purchases for their businesses. To do so, the amendment would extend for another year expensing under section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code.

New equipment and property are necessary to successfully operate a business. But large business purchases generally require depreciation across a number of years, and depreciation requires additional bookkeeping.

Expensing under section 179 allows for an immediate 100-percent deduction of the cost for most personal property purchased for use in a business. In 2007, small business owners may deduct up to $112,000 of equipment expenses.

When small business owners are able to expense equipment, they no longer have to keep depreciation records on that equipment. So extending section 179 expensing would ease small business bookkeeping burdens.

The amendment would also allow small business owners to quickly recover the cost of improvements to their establishments through extension and expansion of the 15-year straight-line depreciation period for leaseholds and restaurant improvements. Without this provision, they would have to depreciate over the course of 39 years.

Allowing retailers and restaurants to use a 15-year straight-line depreciation period would help entrepreneurs who open a business or remodel their property. The entrepreneur's investment could be recovered over a period of time more closely reflecting wear and tear.

The amendment would extend the 15-year recovery period for leasehold and restaurant improvements. The amendment would also broaden the provision to allow retail owners and new restaurants to take advantage of this shortened depreciation period.

The amendment would also help businesses to provide jobs for workers who have experienced barriers to entering the workforce by extending and expanding the work opportunity tax credit or WOTC.

WOTC encourages businesses to hire workers who might not otherwise find work. WOTC has been remarkably successful. By reducing expenditures on public assistance, WOTC is highly cost-effective. The business community is highly supportive of these credits. Industries like retail and restaurants that hire many low-skill workers find it especially useful.

The amendment would extend WOTC for 5 years, and the amendment would expand the credit to make it available to employers who hire veterans disabled after 9/11.

As of July 2006, nearly 20,000 members of our Armed Forces were wounded in action in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Many of these soldiers are now permanently disabled. Many do not know what they are going to do. We need to help these young men and women. A modest tax incentive to help them get back into the workforce is one place to start.

The amendment would simplify the way that small businesses keep records for tax purposes. The cash method of accounting is often the easiest method of accounting. Allowing small business to use the cash method reduces the administrative and tax compliance burden of these businesses.

The amendment would let more businesses take advantage of this method. Businesses with gross receipts up to $10 million would be able to use the cash method.

The amendment helps small businesses by modifying S corporation rules. These modifications reduce the effect of what some call the ``sting tax.'' These modifications improve the viability of community banks.

Senator Grassley, members of the Finance Committee, and I have worked to develop a balanced package, and I believe that we have succeeded.

The language included in the amendment is a responsible package that will ensure the continued growth and success of small businesses.

We have also paid for it. Most of the offsets are proposals that the Senate has supported several times before.

The offsets include a proposal to end future tax benefits for abusive sale in/lease out tax shelters, or SILOs. These deals use foreign tax exempt entities to generate sham tax deductions. Even after Congress shut these deals down in 2004, some taxpayers continue to take excessive, unwarranted depreciation deductions on German sewer systems and the like. The IRS says that it has 1,500 of these deals under audit, involving billions, yes, billions, of dollars.

The offsets include doubling fines, penalties, and interest on taxes owed as a result of using certain abusive offshore financial arrangements to avoid paying taxes. Taxpayers who hide their money from the IRS through offshore credit cards and other shady financial arrangements need to get the message that this Congress is serious about ending these abuses.

The offsets include closing corporate loopholes for companies who reinvented themselves as foreign corporations to avoid paying tax here in America. In March of 2002, Senator Grassley and I made it clear that those who put profits ahead of patriotism did so at their own peril. The amendment would treat those who moved offshore after that date like a U.S. company, and the amendment would make those companies pay U.S. taxes.

The hard-working American taxpayers whom we are trying to help in this amendment should not have to pay more in taxes because some taxpayers are abusing the tax system through tax shelters. They also should not have to bear the burden of civil settlements and punitive damages paid by companies who engage in questionable behavior.

These are sound tax policy changes. Let us finally enact an increase in the minimum wage, and let us also pass this useful package of tax benefits to help America's small businesses. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. President, on April 11, the Finance Committee is going to be holding a hearing on Medicare Advantage plans and other providers' plans that affect Medicare. We want to do this right. We want to do this in a very thoughtful, considerate way.

There are Medicare Advantage plans that are doing a lot of good work. That is clear. Certainly, the Finance Committee, of which Senator Hatch is a member--and we have the April 11 hearing--is going to deal with this issue. I urge Members to do this the right way, and the right way is to figure out what to do generally with all Medicare providers, including managed care. Again, there are managed care companies that are very good and provide benefits for seniors. Dental has already been mentioned by the good Senator from Utah. The more thoughtful way is to not hamstring the committee by preventing the committee from making any changes to these programs. Rather, let's be thoughtful, flexible.

I urge Members not to approve this amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment does undermine the basis of Medicaid today, which is ``medically necessary services.'' The effect of this amendment is to allow States to lower health care coverage for low-income kids. That is the effect of this amendment. Why do States want more flexibility, especially with respect to this program? So basically they can lower benefits. They can save money. There has been a longstanding principle under Medicaid that Medicaid should provide medically necessary services, such as immunizations or checkups, to low-income kids, and that is the basis. We have to keep it. The effect of this amendment is to undermine that. If we stand for anything here, it is making sure low-income kids do not have less health care benefits, at least. They should have more. This amendment would undermine that and allow States to have lower benefits for kids, and for that reason it should be rejected.

Mr. President, the underlying budget resolution expands SCHIP coverage. This amendment goes the other direction; it restricts coverage. It creates a false choice saying we will take away here, we will give there. The net effect of it is it restricts coverage for kids.

It is similar to--it is not exactly the same as, but it is similar to the Cornyn amendment on SCHIP, which we defeated with a vote of 38 to 59.

The long and short of it is, this does restrict SCHIP benefits. I urge us not to go in the direction of restricting SCHIP coverage. I want to actually go in the other direction and expand. I urge that we not adopt this amendment.

Mr. President, the amendment sounds good. It is nice, bland language to provide participants with the benefits of savings and investment. But make no mistake about it, this is a stalking-horse for Social Security. That is what this is all about.

The Senator offered virtually the same amendment last year, which had the same purpose, and it was defeated 46 to 53, I think. This is privatization of Social Security. The American people rejected that; they rejected private accounts. It would cause a huge increase in the Federal deficit, a massive transfer. This amendment is disguised but would do just that.

It looks good on the surface, but this is an amendment to privatize Social Security, create private accounts for Social Security. Senators should not be fooled. Again, Senators rejected this

very same amendment last year by a large vote of 46 to 53. It should be rejected this time as well.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, this request has been cleared with the two managers and the ranking members of the Finance Committee. I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment No. 504 with the text I send to the desk.

Mr. President, this amendment basically confirms our commitment to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program by September 30. We have to get this authorized quickly. It is the statement of the Senate that we will do so; otherwise, we lose a large number of dollars. We lose about $25 billion from the budget baseline if we do not get this done. It will wreak financial havoc on States if we do not get this done.

The program has reduced the rate of uninsured children by one-fifth. It is a great opportunity, frankly, for everyone in this body to say ``yes'' to kids. Yes, we are going to make sure our kids are covered with insurance. We are going to expand the Children's Health Insurance Program. I urge all Senators to vote yes.

Mr. President, we can voice vote this as far as I am concerned. There was a request on my side. I don't know if there is anymore. I don't see anybody waving his hand or her hand, so it is fine with me.

Mr. President, we voted to affirm our commitment to the program. The amendment offered by the Senator from Texas undermines the current program. Many Senators want to expand the Children's Health Insurance Program. This undermines it. It reduces the current program and wreaks havoc with the States. They will lose their flexibility that they currently have in administering the program. It puts a huge financial burden also on States that otherwise want to provide resources for the kids in their States.

I urge strongly we do not adopt the Cornyn amendment because it undermines the current program. It is a step backward, not forward.

Mr. President, this amendment should be opposed very simply because the savings, the $34 billion the Senator from Texas prescribes, could not be used as offsets to help accommodate other programs. Let's take SCHIP, for example. Because the way the Senator's amendment is written, as reconciliation instructions, the $34 billion could not be offset. That would be straight deficit reduction.

We are going to need, frankly, some wiggle room in Medicare programs to find revenue to pay for CHIP and for other Medicare adjustments. It makes no sense to straight cut $34 billion out of Medicare alone, in itself a deep cut, without some way of shoring up some of the needs we are going to have, especially SCHIP. I strongly oppose this amendment.

Madam President, this amendment fails to distinguish between Part B premium and Part D. This amendment calls for means testing Part D. What does that honestly mean? It will create massive confusion among seniors. Why? The Government sets the Part B premium. The private sector sets the Part D drug premium. There are 1,500 plans and each of them is different. Some premiums are a few dollars, some are $100.

You think seniors were confused with Part D when it first came out? That is a picnic compared to the confusion this amendment is going to create. Think of all the confusion the seniors are going to have to face, trying to figure out is their premium means tested compared to their friends' premium next door? This is massively complex for seniors. There is so much confusion for seniors that the amendment should not be agreed to.

I urge Senators to vote against this confusion.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend from North Dakota, Senator Conrad. He has done a super job, almost impossible job putting this budget together. It is tough enough to get agreements in this body, and it is more difficult when it is a budget resolution. I compliment my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their excellent and diligent work. I also say to him I appreciate his offer of an apology with respect to the misunderstanding and miscommunication. This Senator is probably as much a part of the miscommunication as anybody.

Amendment No. 492

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

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

Mr. President, I again commend the chairman for his able work in bringing this budget to the floor. He has done a superb job.

The budget resolution before us leaves a surplus of $132 billion in the year 2012. The amendment I now offer on behalf of Senators Landrieu, Pryor, Bayh, and Bill Nelson would state the Senate's will on what we should do if that surplus materializes.

In sum, our amendment says that the Senate's highest priority for any surplus should be American families. Our amendment would put children first. It would take $15 billion out of that $132 billion and devote it to improving children's health care coverage under CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program. The budget resolution already recognizes this priority in a deficit-neutral reserve fund.

Our amendment would also reduce the amount in that reserve fund. So we are not increasing the net amount of spending on CHIP. It will be the same. We are just making that work on CHIP more likely.

We are saying if we have a surplus in 2012, then we ought to spend some part of that surplus on children's health, and we are saying if we have a surplus in 2012, we should not raise taxes to pay for all of the Children's Health Insurance Program. If we have a surplus in 2012, we should not cut Medicare to pay for all of CHIP. Rather, we should use some of that surplus to fund children's health; that is, put children first.

Then our amendment takes the rest of the surplus and returns it to the hard-working American families who created it. Our amendment devotes the rest of the surplus to the extension and enhancement of tax relief for hard-working American families.

Here are the types of tax relief about which we are talking. We are talking about making the 10-percent tax bracket permanent. That is a tax cut for all taxpayers. Obviously, if the 10-percent tax bracket is made permanent--that is, for all years--all taxpayers who pay income taxes, irrespective of their income, irrespective of their bracket, get a tax break.

We are talking about extending the child tax credit. That provides a $1,000 tax credit per child. This tax credit recognizes a family's ability to pay taxes decreases as family size increases. Unless we act, the child tax credit will fall to $500 per child. Currently, it is at $1,000. The child tax credit should be made permanent. We need to recognize the financial responsibilities of childbearing.

We are also talking about continuing the marriage penalty relief, which is a tax cut on which the American family has come to rely. It is going to continue. We know that. We should recognize that fact. Marriage penalty relief makes sure a married couple filing a joint return has the same combined tax liability as they would have if they were not married.

We are also talking about enhancing the dependent care credit. Clearly, this credit is very important to working families. It recognizes the additional cost for raising children in this fast-paced society.

We are talking about improving the adoption credit. The majority of adoptions cost over $20,000. This provision offers a credit of $10,000 for those willing to give a home to a needy child.

We are talking about providing combat pay under the earned-income tax credit, otherwise known as the EITC. Under current law, income earned by a soldier in a combat zone is exempt from income tax. That is good. This actually, however, hurts low-income military personnel under the EITC. If not for the EITC combat pay exception, combat zone pay would not count as earned income for purposes of determining the credit. This amendment makes that exception permanent so that military families can get the full benefit of the EITC.

We are talking about reforming the estate tax. We want to try to give American families certainty. We want to support America's small farmers and ranchers, and in this amendment, we have allowed room for estate tax reform that will do that.

And we talk about returning surplus revenues to hard-working American families.

That is what our amendment does. It is very simple, very straightforward. It says we should put America's kids and families first. It says if we have a surplus, these are the priorities it should be used for. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

Madam President, I believe this amendment should be adopted by every Senator because essentially it is saying if we have a surplus in 2012, as contemplated by the budget resolution, these are priorities all of us support. If these were before the Senate today as actual tax provisions--and they will be, I am sure, at some future date because the current tax cuts don't expire until 2010--that we will vote for them anyway because it is the right thing to do.

Marriage penalty relief, child tax credit, the combat pay exception for soldiers, adoption credit, the 10-percent bracket--these are all provisions that are very important. The American public deserves them. I hope very much this amendment will be adopted by all Members because I think it is something all Members and all the citizens of our country support.

I see the ranking member is on the floor. I would be interested in knowing the degree to which he enthusiastically supports the amendment.

It is approximately $195 billion. It allocates the projected surplus that is in the budget resolution.

That is a good question. The answer to that is essentially this is a 5-year budget resolution, so we want to balance the budget in 5 years, in 2012. But because the tax cuts that are mentioned in the amendment currently expire in 2010, the Senator raises the question about 2011, 2012. If I understand the import of the question of the ranking member of the Budget Committee, it is what happens in 2011.

In the earlier years, 2010, there would be a deficit, but by the time we finish the 5 years, there would be a surplus. We have written this amendment in a way to prevent a yo-yo, on-off effect of the tax provisions. To make it perfectly perfect, so there is not a deficit in any year, 2010, 2011, or 2012, we can have the tax cuts go up or down, and so forth, but I think it is best for the American people not to have a yo-yo effect, not go up and down, but to extend across the board those provisions which are contained in the amendment at the end of the day would not be a deficit.

It is true, in those years there is deficit spending, but it comes in balance in 2012.

I think it is $194 billion for those 3 years 2010, 2011, 2012.

Approximately.

Sorry?

No, we are back in balance by 2012 at the end of the 5- year period contemplated by this amendment. In the meantime, we are in deficit for the years 2010 and 2011.

There is an underlying answer to all these questions; namely, these are questions the Finance Committee is going to address and find the appropriate offsets and deal with the pay-go when it comes up at that time. But essentially, education tuition tax credits are not provided for in this amendment, but are in the budget resolution.

Section 179 expensing is not contemplated.

It is not.

It is not.

Those two and some others, correct, including the 10- percent bracket.

I expect we will.

If the Senator will yield.

Madam President, I will say to the body, the world, and also primarily to the Senate and the ranking member of the Budget Committee, of course, these are all issues--that is, those issues raised basically by the ranking member of the Budget Committee--that the Finance Committee is going to work on over the next several years. It is up to us, up to the committee, and up to this body to find the offsets to pay for them. We will do the very best we can. I think we don't want to get into a deficit situation.

The estate tax provision.

Some people call it the death tax. We all know what we are talking about. This amendment contemplates extending the estate tax provisions that are in effect in 2009 permanently.

Again, under current law I think the exempted amount is $3.5 million.

The 2009 extension. The point is that the resolution also contemplates--well, it has an additional $4 billion that can be used for other tax purposes, including changing the provisions of the Federal estate tax.

I thank the Senator. I might ask the question, Madam President: Basically, what are budgets? Budgets are an expression of priorities. This budget is designed to express what this body thinks, what so many of us think are the proper priorities for this country. Since the resolution has about a $132 billion surplus, we think the strong priority should be to use that to help middle-income Americans.

The provisions in this amendment provide for that and clearly help kids get health insurance. A major problem in this country, clearly, is health care. We spend so much on health care. Yet there is some question what we get out of it. This country spends $6,300 per person-- that is per capita--on health care, which is almost twice as much as the next most expensive country. Yet we are not twice as healthy. The problem, clearly, is coverage; that is, not everybody has health insurance. Everybody in America should have health insurance.

The other question is cost, but this amendment addresses the coverage side of it; that is, trying to help more people get health insurance, people who do not now have health insurance. Where do we begin? We think we begin with kids. Currently, there are about 6 million children who are covered under the Children's Health Insurance Program. There are about 6 million others who are eligible but not covered. We believe, and this amendment states, that if we begin providing health insurance coverage for more Americans, we should certainly begin with kids. When we begin with kids, let's help those kids who don't have the same financial means that other kids have.

A lot of other kids, fortunate for them, their families, father and mother, have a good job and health insurance is part of the job. But we are talking about kids who don't have that. These are kids whose income levels, or their parents' income level, is just above the qualifying rate for Medicaid. Medicaid does provide health insurance for kids, but there are a lot of kids who don't get health insurance because their family's income is just above the Medicaid cutoff. That needs to be covered under the Children's Health Insurance Program, on which this amendment is designed to expand.

So I would summarize by saying that I think it is a proper set of priorities, given the resources we have, and I hope every Senator supports this amendment.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 480

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all the pending amendments be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I am offering an amendment that I hope will garner unanimous support. The amendment simply puts children first in America's budget.

The amendment I am offering today, along with Senator Rockefeller, says reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Plan, otherwise known as SCHIP, is the top health priority of this Congress.

I applaud the work of Chairman Conrad and other members of the Budget Committee for reporting out a budget that provides up to $50 billion over 5 years for reauthorization of CHIP.

I am hopeful that the Senate will adopt the other amendment that I offered earlier today. That amendment will move $15 billion of that CHIP funding from the reserve fund into the numbers of the resolution. It would make the funding even more likely to happen.

The $50 billion level of funding in the budget will ensure that CHIP can meet the demand for services. This funding will ensure that CHIP fulfills its promise of providing health coverage for children who are eligible for CHIP and Medicaid but not enrolled.

Congress has a historic opportunity to help millions of children and families this year. We must get this right.

As we look at CHIP's track record, we can be very proud of its accomplishments over the past decade.

Since 1997, the share of children without health insurance has dropped by one-fifth. Among the poorest children--those with family incomes less than twice the poverty level--one-third fewer children are uninsured today than in 1997. Just as Congress intended, the Children's Health Insurance Program is making inroads to help more children get health coverage.

The Children's Health Insurance Program has also helped to decrease racial and ethnic disparities in children's coverage. Today, the poorest African-American children are one-third more likely to have health coverage, and Hispanic children are one-quarter more likely to have health coverage than they were in 1997.

The Children's Health Insurance Program has also helped to improve the quality of care children receive by increasing the likelihood children have a ``medical home''--that is, a doctor, clinic, or HMO they routinely visit for care. Research demonstrates that 97 percent of children enrolled in CHIP and Medicaid have a ``medial home.'' That is much better than the 72 percent of uninsured children.

We can all agree--CHIP is a great program that has had tremendous benefit for millions of children. But we also know that we can do much better.

Today, three-fourths of the 9 million uninsured children in our Nation are eligible for--either Medicaid or CHIP; but they are not enrolled. CHIP reauthorization holds the promise of helping us make a difference in these children's lives.

CHIP provides a funding stream to help States provide health coverage to children in need. But that funding stream is often unpredictable and does not always track the demands for coverage in the State. We can do better.

But we will not be able to address these problems unless we move forward with reauthorization this year. And we must do so quickly.

If Congress does not enact a reauthorization bill before CHIP funding expires on September 30, we will lose the $25 billion in CHIP funds that are now in the Congressional Budget Office baseline.

We simply cannot afford to miss this deadline. We cannot tell States that we just could not get it done. We cannot tell millions of children that they will have to lose coverage. Failure is not an option.

CHIP is certainly not the only solution to the health care problems facing our Nation. I share the concerns voiced by so many of my colleagues about the need for broader health reforms. But CHIP can be a first step toward this broader goal of health reform.

This amendment commits the Senate to move forward to reauthorize CHIP before the deadline, this year. It is a simple statement about the program's importance and of our will to put children first in our work this year.

Let me be clear. CHIP is not a Democratic priority or a Republican priority. This program was created in a bipartisan spirit fostered by the late Senator John Chafee and Senator Hatch, working together with Senators Kennedy and Rockefeller.

Reauthorization must also be a bipartisan priority. I intend to continue in this spirit and work with my colleague, Senator Grassly, and other members of the Finance Committee to get this done the way it should be this year.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment to reinforce our bipartisan commitment to reauthorize CHIP this year. Our children are depending on us. We must not let them down.

I strongly urge adoption of this amendment at the appropriate time.

In conclusion, we can all agree this is a great program with tremendous benefit for millions of children. We also know we can do much better.

Mr. President, we have a list of cosponsors on this amendment which I do not have with me at the moment. We will get that later for the Record. But I strongly urge the adoption, at the appropriate time, of this amendment because we then would be putting children first.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my colleague from Montana be given 3 minutes at this time. He has been waiting very patiently.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Finance Committee fellows and interns be granted floor privileges during consideration the budget resolution: Neil Ohlenkamp, Suzanne Payne, Jennifer Smith, Leighton Quon, Charles Kovatch, Avi Salzman, Susan Doublas, Diedra Henry-Spires, Howard Tuch, Ton Kornfield, Brett Youngerman, Larry Boyd, Leona Cuttler, Russ Ugone, Sarah Rebecca Smith, Sara Shepherd, Gretchen Hector, and Sarah Butler.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friends and Colleagues, Senator Hatch and Senator Crapo in introducing legislation to make permanent the tax treatment in Subpart F for active financial services income earned abroad.

The legislation that we are introducing today is identical to a bill we introduced in the 109th Congress. Since then, this exemption has been temporarily extended. But that extension will expire at the end of next year. This exemption ensures that the active financial services income earned abroad by American financial services companies, or American manufacturing firms with a financial services operation, is not subject to U.S. tax until that income is brought home to the U.S. parent company.

By making this provision permanent, our legislation will put the American financial services industry on an equal footing with its foreign-based competitors. Those competitors do not face current home country taxation on active financial services income.

This bill is about jobs in Montana. And it is about jobs in each of our States. One of these competitive American financial services companies employs hundreds of Montanans in Great Falls alone. So the health of that company is critically important to my State.

American financial services companies successfully compete in world financial markets. We need to make sure, however, that the U.S. tax rules do not change that situation and make them less competitive in the world arena. This legislation will extend a provision that I believe preserves the international competitiveness of American-based financial services companies, including finance and credit companies, commercial banks, securities firms, and insurance companies. This provision also contains appropriate safeguards to ensure that only truly active businesses benefit.

The active financial services provision is critically important in today's global economy. America's financial services industry is a global leader. It plays a pivotal role in maintaining confidence in the international marketplace. This is a fiercely competitive business. And American-based companies would surely be disadvantaged with an additional tax burden if we allow this exemption to lapse. Through our network of trade agreements, we have made tremendous progress in gaining access to new foreign markets for this industry in recent years. Our tax laws should complement, and not undermine, this effort.

The temporary nature of the active financial services provision, like other expiring provisions, denies American companies the stability enjoyed by their foreign competitors. It is time to make permanent this subpart F active financial services provision. We need to allow American companies to make business decisions on a long-term basis.

I invite my Colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation to provide consistent, equitable, and stable tax treatment for the U.S. financial services industry.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friends and Colleagues, Senator Hatch and Senator Crapo in introducing legislation to make permanent the tax treatment in Subpart F for active financial services income earned abroad.

The legislation that we are introducing today is identical to a bill we introduced in the 109th Congress. Since then, this exemption has been temporarily extended. But that extension will expire at the end of next year. This exemption ensures that the active financial services income earned abroad by American financial services companies, or American manufacturing firms with a financial services operation, is not subject to U.S. tax until that income is brought home to the U.S. parent company.

By making this provision permanent, our legislation will put the American financial services industry on an equal footing with its foreign-based competitors. Those competitors do not face current home country taxation on active financial services income.

This bill is about jobs in Montana. And it is about jobs in each of our States. One of these competitive American financial services companies employs hundreds of Montanans in Great Falls alone. So the health of that company is critically important to my State.

American financial services companies successfully compete in world financial markets. We need to make sure, however, that the U.S. tax rules do not change that situation and make them less competitive in the world arena. This legislation will extend a provision that I believe preserves the international competitiveness of American-based financial services companies, including finance and credit companies, commercial banks, securities firms, and insurance companies. This provision also contains appropriate safeguards to ensure that only truly active businesses benefit.

The active financial services provision is critically important in today's global economy. America's financial services industry is a global leader. It plays a pivotal role in maintaining confidence in the international marketplace. This is a fiercely competitive business. And American-based companies would surely be disadvantaged with an additional tax burden if we allow this exemption to lapse. Through our network of trade agreements, we have made tremendous progress in gaining access to new foreign markets for this industry in recent years. Our tax laws should complement, and not undermine, this effort.

The temporary nature of the active financial services provision, like other expiring provisions, denies American companies the stability enjoyed by their foreign competitors. It is time to make permanent this subpart F active financial services provision. We need to allow American companies to make business decisions on a long-term basis.

I invite my Colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation to provide consistent, equitable, and stable tax treatment for the U.S. financial services industry.

Mr. President, on Tuesday, February 27, 2007, the Finance Committee held a hearing on energy-tax issues titled: America's Energy Future: Bold Ideas, Practical Solutions. I ask unanimous consent that the following testimony from that hearing be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I note that the underlying legislation contains a sense of the Senate resolution that the Senate should implement the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission to ``create a single, principal point of oversight and review for homeland security.'' This provision was added during committee markup by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. I would ask my colleague, hasn't the Senate already implemented this recommendation?

I appreciate the Senator's recollection. S. Res. 445 established the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. It also provided that the newly established committee would have referral and oversight of all matters relating to the Department of Homeland Security, with certain exceptions. One of those exceptions was with respect to functional oversight of customs revenue or commercial functions performed by any personnel of the Department of Homeland Security. Does the Senator recall the basis for that exception?

I appreciate the Senator's recollection of our efforts on this issue. I would add that following that hearing and our letter, we worked closely with the Committee on Governmental Affairs to develop text that would keep intact the commercial functions of the Customs Service. Under the final legislation, authorities vested in the Secretary of the Treasury relating to customs revenue functions remained with the Secretary of the Treasury unless delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security. By order of the Secretary, dated May 15, 2003, Treasury Order 100-16, the Secretary of the Treasury delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security general authority over customs revenue functions, subject to certain exceptions that preserved Treasury's oversight of the Customs Service with respect to policy matters and the authority to issue regulations and determinations. That delegation of authority remains in place to this day.

I concur entirely. And those efforts served as the context for the retention of Finance Committee oversight of customs revenue functions and commercial operations in S. Res. 445. The Finance Committee has exercised oversight of those functions for almost 200 years, and we as a nation continue to benefit from that accumulated expertise.

I agree. The SAFE Port Act demonstrated that the Finance Committee and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, together with the Commerce Committee, could work together to enact strong legislation to secure our borders and protect the trade-based economic security of our country. That legislation is strong precisely because it was the product of the Finance Committee's focus on customs functions and commercial operations, coupled with the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's focus on border security and the Commerce Committee's expertise relating to our Nation's seaports.

I agree entirely. Consequently, I must note for the record that I don't see any need to include the sense of the Senate resolution that has been added to the underlying legislation by the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

I agree.

cargo security on passenger planes

Mr. President, I am honored to speak to you today about the wonderful work being done in a school in my home State--Big Sky High School in Missoula, MT. Big Sky High School is a leader in science education and a wonderful example of how creativity and innovation can prepare students for the 21st century.

To the students, teachers, parents, and administrators at Big Sky High School, I commend you for your dedication and imagination. Big Sky High School should be an example to schools all over the country of what we can do if we make a real commitment to teaching our students the skills necessary to keep America competitive in the global economy.

Big Sky's science programs emphasize real-world applications and collaboration. For example, in the elective ``Advanced Problems in Science,'' students work on research projects and learn how to document their results and present them to the community. Many of these projects are featured in science fairs and other competitions, giving students experience and connecting them to the scientific community.

Science teacher Jim Harkins, who has taught at Big Sky for 24 years, is an example of how a great teacher can inspire students to go into the sciences. Let me tell you about Jim's goals for science class in his own words. ``I try to tell the students that the classroom, text book setting is not real science,'' he said. ``Science is not learned in books while sitting at desks. In this class, Advanced Problems in Science, our goal is to simulate their curiosity in a real-life science setting. This program provides Montana students with competitiveness on national and international levels.''

To see the success of this program, you need to look no further than the students themselves. Big Sky alumnus Jayce Getz was an active participant in these science programs and he was recently honored with one of only 30 mathematical sciences postdoctoral research fellowships from the National Science Foundation. Jayce will begin a professorship at Princeton next fall. Jayce attributes some of his current success to his participation in Big Sky's science program. ``Kids in Missoula, Montana, can and do get involved with important research in the sciences,'' he said. ``The trick is to get started early on.''

Yet at Big Sky, kids do start early. The halls are filled with the future scientific leaders of America. Students study the genetic code of a cyanobacterial strain and test sail designs in wind tunnels by using an innovative interdisciplinary approach.

By nurturing the curiosity and creativity of these students, Big Sky teachers like Jim Harkins ensure America's youth are given the education and tools necessary to succeed in the 21st century. I applaud Jim and his students. They are examples of what makes Montana's school system the best in the Nation.

To Mr. Harkins and students of Big Sky High School, I extend my congratulations.

Mr. President, energy is once again one of the top two or three domestic issues facing the Congress this year.

Prices for gasoline, heating oil, electricity, and natural gas have soared in recent years, hitting working families hard. Our energy security has been threatened on many fronts: We have seen a terrorist attack on Saudi Arabian oil facilities, oil workers kidnapped in Nigeria, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez threatened to cut off our supply of oil from his country, and some question whether Iran's role as an oil supplier keeps other countries from properly addressing Iran's nuclear proliferation threat. Recently we learned that Russia and Iran are talking about creating an OPEC-like organization for natural gas--a cartel that could put even more pressure on natural gas prices.

Energy provides one of America's greatest challenges for the 21st century. Our economy has been dependent on oil and coal for about 100 years. And since World War II, natural gas has become part of the equation. Will we continue to rely on these energy sources for the next 100 years?

The cost of energy will profoundly affect the future competitiveness of the American economy. As the Chinese and Indian economies grow, so will their demand for energy. And that will add further upward pressure to energy prices.

Global climate change is another issue that demands that we take a fresh look at our energy future. While we address the issue of energy security, we must also keep an eye on the effect that new energy development will have on carbon dioxide emissions and global warming.

We are essentially trapped in an energy box. It is a box characterized by high imports, wildly fluctuating prices for oil and natural gas, and environmental danger. As a Nation, we must experiment with ways to break out of that box. To break out, we need an energy research effort modeled after the Manhattan project, or the Apollo mission to the moon.

America has a brilliant record of gathering the best minds. We have consistently met challenges that at first seemed to be impossible. During World War II, the Manhattan project brought together brilliant physicists and engineers to build an atomic bomb in 3 short years. And after President Kennedy described his vision to a joint session of Congress in May of 1961, the Apollo space program put a man on the moon in just 8 years.

Looking back, these achievements look stunning. Both projects started out with no guarantee of success. Each could have ended in utter failure. Yet because of the talent, ingenuity, and focus of creative minds, they both succeeded.

Breaking out of the energy box poses a similar challenge. Success is not guaranteed. But we have got to give it our best shot.

Today I am reintroducing legislation to create an ARPA-E, Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy. My legislation would create a new energy research agency to help our nation face the challenges of a newly competitive global economy. It will help us to move into a new energy future.

We have the greatest research scientists on the planet. We have the most technically-talented workforce in

the world. But we do not have the vigor that we need in energy research. Energy research is a backwater, compared to other research efforts in biotechnology, medicine, computers, and defense-oriented projects.

With the Manhattan project and the Apollo space program, America proved that we can gather the best talent for a focused mission and succeed. It is time that we began a similar effort on energy.

We need to create a new agency to initiate cutting-edge, innovative energy research and development aimed at taking us to a new energy future. Doing so is essential to our effort to improve our economic competitiveness.

The new agency is modeled on DARPA--the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency--in the Department of Defense. Among the revolutionary technologies that DARPA has developed are the internet and stealth technology for aircraft. DARPA has been a tremendous success.

The National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine joined to form the Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century. Norm Augustine chaired the committee. Based on DARPA's achievements, the committee recommended the creation of an ARPA-E: Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy.

This was one of a number of recommendations that the committee made in its impressive 2005 report on the future competitive challenges that America faces. The committee recommended that ARPA-E be designed to conduct transformative, out-of-the-box energy research.

My bill proposes that ARPA-E be a small agency with a total of 250 people. A minimum of 180 of them would be technical staff. A director of the agency and four deputies would lead ARPA-E. I propose that ARPA- E be funded at $300 million in fiscal year 2008, $600 million in 2009, $1.1 billion in 2010, $1.5 billion in 2011, and $2.0 billion in 2012.

We would require that the staff have a technical background. The agency would use the Experimental Personnel Authority designed for DARPA. That authority authorizes higher salaries than for typical Federal employees, and faster hiring, so that the agency could get to work quickly.

To keep the intense, innovative focus that we want, technical staff would be limited to 3 to 4 years at the agency. Managers would be limited to 4 to 6 years. The director could give both groups extended terms of employment if the director so chose.

For contracts, the agency would use the DARPA procedure. That procedure allows more flexible contracting arrangements than are normally possible under the Federal Acquisition Regulations. To ensure that ARPA-E would conduct innovative research, 75 percent of research projects initiated by ARPA-E would not be peer reviewed.

The ARPA-E would be authorized to award cash prizes to encourage and accelerate energy research accomplishments.

Finally, the bill would require a report by the end of fiscal year 2008 on whether ARPA-E would need its own energy research lab.

Congress enacted an important companion piece to ARPA-E last December in the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. That law extended the credit for electricity from renewable resources, added $400 million to the Clean Renewable Energy Bond program, extended the deduction for energy efficient buildings and the credit for energy efficient homes, and provided incentives for cellulosic biomass ethanol facilities.

On the energy agenda this year is consideration of President Bush's proposal to increase Federal targets for use of renewable and alternative fuels. And additional tax incentives to encourage the development and use of alternative energy are being contemplated.

We are seeing exciting new efforts in America to strengthen our energy competitiveness. We need to build on this foundation by creating an aggressive energy research agency that will push the limits of new technology and discover alternative energy sources.

America has massive coal reserves. So coal gasification is receiving greater attention. Gasification involves breaking down coal under heat and pressure to create synthetic natural gas. We must address the environmental issues. But if this technology can be improved, then America will be able to take a huge step toward energy independence.

There are exciting developments in wind energy. In Montana, the Judith Gap Wind Farm has been generating power at full capacity, using 90 wind turbines. Each turbine can produce enough electricity for roughly 400 homes. The entire farm can produce the electricity needed to supply 300,000 customers. And my State ranks in the top 15 States in the Nation for wind power capacity. Nationwide, wind power generating capacity increased 27 percent in 2006.

Fusion is another possible area where aggressive research could lead to huge payoffs. Continuing research will help us to determine whether energy production through fusion is a practical option.

Ethanol is also gaining as an alternative energy option. The Nation's first cellulosic ethanol pilot facility has opened in Jennings, Louisiana. This 1.4 million gallons-per-year, demonstration-scale facility will produce cellulosic ethanol from sugarcane plant residue and specially-bred energy cane by the end of 2007.

There are also exciting developments in nanotechnology, solar power, energy-efficient materials, biomass, and green buildings.

All of these are examples of possible directions for our Nation's energy future. But we need a more aggressive and focused research and development effort to push these alternatives. And we need an effort to create scientific breakthroughs to supplement existing technologies.

We have got to give it our best shot. As President Franklin Roosevelt said, we must conduct ``bold, persistent experimentation.''

Our economic security is at stake. Our ability to compete in the new world economy is at stake.

ARPA-E will help us to move forward on existing technologies. It will help us to find new technologies that are not even imaginable today.

I urge my Colleagues to look closely at this legislation.

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