Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, I think it is clear that the American people want the Senate to have a debate on this issue. There is no doubt about that. I very much hope that enough Senators, when we vote tomorrow, will vote to invoke cloture so we can do just that, have a debate. I think for the Senate to not vote to invoke cloture would be very irresponsible. I cannot for the life of me imagine why the Senate would not conduct that vote. I very much hope when we have that vote tomorrow that 60 Senators, more than 60 Senators vote in favor of cloture so the Senate can address one of the most fundamental issues that I think is on Americans' minds.

I was going to go to Iraq tonight because I wanted to see firsthand what is going on. I wanted to talk to troops, talk to commanders. I wanted to talk to not only the American personnel but also the Iraqis. I wanted to determine, the best I could, the degree to which Prime Minister Maliki and the Iraqis are able to stand on their own two feet and do what they are supposed to do; that is, govern and run their own country. I am not going to go over tonight, obviously. I want to be here tomorrow and cast my vote so we can start debating. That is the right thing to do.

Based upon what I see in the newspapers, what I see on television, based upon the comments of my colleagues who have recently been to Iraq, I am very disturbed. To put it simply, Iraq is a mess. It is a mess because the United States, to some degree, started it by invading the country and opened up Pandora's box and got the Shias and the Sunnis and the Kurds all stirred up. Now they are fighting each other.

We did a good thing by toppling Saddam Hussein. That was the right thing to do. But we did not think through the consequences. We did not understand what we were doing as a country. We did not have an exit strategy. We did not know what the consequences of occupation would be.

Certainly, the United States, with its very superior Armed Forces, can very easily occupy Iraq--Baghdad. In fact, the occupation was probably a little easier than many people anticipated. But when you go back and talk to generals, talk to defense personnel, talk to analysts, they all--many of them, many of them are very clear in saying that they advised the Pentagon not to go ahead and do this until we knew what we were doing once we got there. It would be a big mistake, many said, to proceed unless we knew what we were doing.

Put simply, there was just no exit strategy. There was none whatsoever. I have read so many reports and quotes of so many generals advising us to not go into Iraq until we knew what we were doing that I am appalled, frankly, at how unprepared the United States was when it went in.

All Americans, if they have any second thoughts about that statement I just made, they, too, would be appalled if they would read those same statements. They are all in the record. They are all in the public domain. I strongly urge people to read them and look at them.

The key here, as has been stated by the Senator from Virginia, the senior Senator from Virginia, is: Can the Iraqis stand up on their own two feet? It is my belief that they are not standing up on their own two feet. Clearly, the continued civil war's death toll indicates that Iraq is not taking control of the situation. There are so many reports that the Iraqi Army is unfit and that they are not doing the job. There are questions about how well it is trained or is being trained. Clearly the answer is, it is not being trained. They are not doing a good job.

My view is it doesn't make much sense to throw more troops, a modest number of more troops, at a failed policy. That is what it comes down to. The Iraqis aren't taking care of themselves, and if they aren't taking care of themselves, why should we take care of them? We have lost so many American lives, so many Montanans, young men and women who have been killed over there, and it makes no sense, in my judgment, to keep doing this.

That is why I think we should vote on this resolution on Monday and, secondly, why I think the resolution should pass. We should not continue a failed policy. I don't know very many people who think the policy is working. Most think it has failed. So let's, as the U.S. Senate, make that statement.

What do we do now? If it has failed, what do we do? I don't think anybody has a simple answer. There is no real silver bullet here. But I do think we need to give the Iraqis a set date and say to them: We are going to get out of here on this set date, and you need to know that. My fear is, if we don't do that, they are just going to keep thinking the United States is going to keep sending more troops and keep taking care of them. It is human nature for them to do so, to think that. That is why I believe we should give them a definite date we will start bringing our troops home.

I also think we have to engage other countries in the region. We are not doing a good job of doing that. This administration says: Well, we can't talk to Iran; we shouldn't do that. We can't talk to Syria; we shouldn't do that. I don't understand that. It seems to me, if you want a solution, you have to talk to people. You have to talk to people who are involved. We are talking to the Saudis, we are talking to the Jordanians, the Israelis, and others in the region. That is good. But two very key players are Iran and Syria.

In life, we talk to our friends, but we should also talk to our enemies. We don't have to agree with our enemies, but we should talk to them. When you start talking to people with whom you have disagreements, after a while you learn there may be a common assumption or two. After a while you might learn something that indicates there is progress. There might be a little bit of daylight once you start talking to somebody. You certainly aren't going to learn anything unless you talk to them. The stakes are so high and the consequences are so great, I strongly urge the administration to start talking to people. So what if the public policy was that we were not going to do that in the past. Don't be stubborn. Don't be too proud. Do what is right.

Just try to talk to the people in the region so we can find some common solutions.

I know it is not going to be easy. It will be very difficult. But I know of no other alternative--no other alternative--but to give them a date and say: we are out of here; by this certain date we are going to start repositioning troops elsewhere in the region. We should tell them that so they sober up more--not just Prime Minister Maliki but the other principals in the country--and realize they have to start getting their act together. As I said, we need to have some very serious negotiations with groups in the region and also with countries in the region so we can manage the situation as best we possibly can.

This is one of the most serious issues I have confronted since I have been in the Senate in the last several years, and I commend my colleagues for addressing it so seriously. It is the right thing to do. But it is also the right thing to do to start debating this issue in the Senate. I think we will be doing the country a great service if we do.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, Saint Luke explains in his Gospel:

The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath sent me

to heal.

Delivering care to the sick and injured is the Lord's work. To heal the sick at great risk to one's own safety reflects the best that we can be as the Lord's servants.

I am here to honor three healers from my home State of Montana-- ambulance pilot Vince Kirol, paramedic and firefighter Paul Erikson, and registered nurse Darcy Doyle. These Montana heroes died tragically during an air rescue mission on February 6.

Their deaths are a tremendous loss to their families, to Benefits Healthcare, and to all of Montana. These dedicated individuals were en route to Bozeman from Great Falls in dangerous weather to pick up a patient who had suffered a severe head injury that required immediate surgery.

Every minute counted. The victim's injury had to be treated as quickly as possible. The longer it took to get him to the hospital, the worse his chances were for survival. The only way to get the patient the care he needed was by air transport. So the dependable air ambulance team at Benefits Healthcare was called. Vince, Paul, and Darcy responded to the call without hesitation and without concern for their own safety.

They knew that somebody's life was hanging in the balance. This is the type of pressure-filled situation in which they have always operated.

Montana is a large State, it is a beautiful State, with rural and isolated areas, where people who are injured may need immediate rescue, may need it right away, including air ambulance transportation to a trauma center.

Unfortunately, there are not enough hospitals in Montana that can give the kind of care someone with severe injuries immediately needs.

So-called level 1 hospitals have operating rooms, surgeons, and radiologists available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, waiting and ready for any patient with severe injuries who is brought in. There are no level 1 hospitals in Montana.

Level 2 hospitals have the right facilities, but the doctors are not in the hospital around the clock to be available immediately when a patient arrives. There are only three level 2 trauma centers in Montana.

It is very expensive to run hospitals and offer this high-level, specialized care. Only three hospitals in Montana--one in Missoula, one in Billings, and one in Great Falls--offer such services, so every patient who needs a trauma center has to go to one of these hospitals. This makes air ambulance transportation even more important, given Montana's 800-mile span and mountainous terrain.

The Benefits medevac program provides 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week air ambulance transportation in Montana and the Northwest. Aircraft respond to isolated areas, accident scenes, and hospitals to bring patients to the regional emergency center as quickly as possible.

These dedicated pilots, nurses, and paramedics who operate the Benefits medevac program provide honorable and essential services to Montana. The three Benefits professionals who lost their lives last week were trying to do just that.

Darcy Dengel was a 27-year-old registered nurse. She joined Benefits in June 2001 and transferred to the emergency room in August 2003, where she also worked as a flight nurse.

Her Benefits colleagues describe her as a bright, talented, and vibrant woman who loved her work because that work gave her a unique opportunity to help people in need.

She was able to make a difficult time for a patient a little easier with her gentle care. She was to be married this spring to Rob Beal and is survived by parents Rich and Donna Dengel of Lewistown, MT.

A long-time friend of Darcy Dengel's family described Darcy this way:

She was a light . . . She didn't worry about danger in her

work as a flight nurse. She wanted to help people.

Paul Erickson was 33 years old and was the medic on the flight. Paul was a firefighter who worked on the Mercy Flight on his days off. He worked side by side with his wife Rachelle, who is the trauma coordinator for Benefits. They had a baby boy last July named Spencer Pilot.

Assistant fire chief Steve Hester said this of his colleague:

Paul considered it a service to the community. He was all

about service to others. He knew that in rural Montana the

only way you can get help sometimes is by air.

Vince Kirol was 58 years old and had been flying for 40 years. He was a Mercy Flight fixed-wing pilot for 13 years after working for Metro Aviation in Shreveport, LA. He is survived by his wife Diana and two sons. Vince's pastor noted that he loved the mountains and he loved skiing and hiking with his sons.

Billy Darnell, a friend of Vince's from his church, said this about him:

He cared about people. That's why he loved his job.

Darcy, Paul, and Vince selflessly put their lives at risk, transporting critically ill patients even in perilous weather conditions. They gave their own lives trying to save others. Their deaths are a tremendous loss to Montana. They were good servants, and they are heroes. Our hearts and our prayers go out to their families and to their friends.

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

Madam President, I am grateful to the people of Montana for sending me to Washington as their Senator. I never forget whom I am here to represent.

That is why my staff and I continually meet and talk with small business owners and CPAs from across the State. In anticipation of legislation to increase the minimum wage, I wanted to know how Montana's small businesses would be affected, I wanted to know what tax benefits would help small businesses, and I wanted to make sure that the Senate substitute to H.R. 2 would benefit Montanans.

In particular, I thank James McHugh of Hammer Jack's in Missoula; Robert Walter of Walter's IGA and ACE in Sheridan; James Whaley of Whaley & Associates in Missoula; Ken Walsh of Ruby Valley National Bank in Twin Bridges; Micki Frederikson of Bingham, Campbell, Amrine, and Nolan in Missoula; Dan Vuckovich of Hamilton Misfeldt & Company in Great Falls; Ronald Yates, Jr. of Eide Bailly in Billings; David Johnson of Anderson Zurmuehlen & Co. in Helena; and Leslee Tschida of M.A.R.S. Stout in Missoula.

I thank the men and women of Montana for their hard work, for their input into the formulation of this legislation, for their dedication to grow their companies, and for their confidence in me to deliver for Montana.

Madam President, today the Senate will increase the minimum wage and provide tax relief to the Nation's small businesses. This important legislation will help millions of working Americans and those who employ them. It has been a decade since the last minimum wage increase. It is long overdue.

I am very pleased we added a package of tax incentives for small businesses because many worry that a minimum wage increase will place a burden on small businesses. I want to take a moment to thank the individuals who worked so hard on the tax package.

First, I want to thank my good friend Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Finance Committee, for his leadership on this bill. I also appreciate the hard work and cooperation of his staff, especially Kolan Davis, Mark Prater, Dean Zerbe, Elizabeth Paris, Chris Javens, Cathy Barre, Anne Freeman, Grant Menke, Stanford Swinton and Nick Wyatt.

Second, I thank the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation and Senate Legislative Counsel for their service. I also want to recognize two staff members of the Joint Committee on Taxation who are leaving Congress, Patricia McDermott and Gray Fontenot.

Patricia McDermott will be retiring from her position as legislation counsel with the Joint Committee of Taxation and moving to the private sector. Tricia was qualified plans branch chief in the Office of Associate Chief Counsel at IRS before she came to Joint Tax as a detailee in July of 2000. She joined the JCT staff when the detail ended in 2001. Tricia has advised us on many projects, but I especially want to thank her for the expertise and tireless effort she brought to our work on the Pension Protection Act of 2006. Tricia's knowledge--and her patience--were invaluable and will not be easily replaced.

And we bid farewell to Gray Fontenot, an accountant with the Joint Tax Committee, who will be leaving this week to head to the private sector. Gray has been an essential adviser, particularly on the Katrina tax relief bills. As a native of New Orleans, whose extended family was personally affected by the hurricane, he truly understood the needs of the Gulf Zone, and his expertise was greatly appreciated by the members and staff of the Finance Committee.

Finally, I thank my staff for their tireless effort and dedication, including Russ Sullivan, Bill Dauster, Pat Heck, Rebecca Baxter, Melissa Mueller, Judy Miller, Pat Bousliman, Ryan Abraham, Carol Guthrie, and Erin Shields.

I also thank our dedicated fellows, Mary Baker, Thomas Louthan, and Sara Shepherd, and our talented interns, David Ashner, Larry Boyd, Sarah Butler, Gretchen Hector, Molly Keenan, and Ryan Majerus.

Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Massachusetts seeks recognition. I yield to him whatever time he would like to take.

Mr. President, I tip my hat to my good friend from Massachusetts. He is such a fighter and he is so correct in the statements he is making on behalf of the people who need this increase in the minimum wage.

It is unconscionable that the Senate is delaying that increase. The House passed an increase. We have the same goal line, but we have a more circuitous route in getting there. The Senate is taking so much time in our way to get to the same goal line and raise the minimum wage. The Senator from Massachusetts is pricking our conscience to get this done quickly--now. I deeply compliment my good friend from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, for the information of Senators, we are wondering what in the world is going on here. Let me share some thoughts on the schedule. We are seeking to arrange votes on two amendments by my colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl. We on our side of the aisle are ready to vote. We want to vote. It appears, though, that there are some objections on the other side of the aisle. I hope we can vote in the early afternoon. The objections, I understand, are conflicts that Senators have in the next couple of hours. I hope we can have at least one vote in the early afternoon. Probably after that, we will have another vote in relation to another Kyl amendment, and we are hoping those rollcall votes will be all that are left.

An agreement is not entered into yet--we are working on it--but it is my hope we will have an early vote this afternoon and that then there is one more vote after that, on another Kyl amendment. That should help us to reach a conclusion on this bill, although I suspect a final vote will not be until tomorrow. That is the state of play right now.

A couple words on the substance of the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl. This is only one of seven amendments he has offered. Like six of those seven, this one is not offset. We have already voted on one amendment by the Senator from Arizona. The remaining are not offset, and they would explode the budget deficit. The earlier amendment was soundly defeated on previous rollcall vote. It was offset by cutting education benefits for families who work in education institutions. That was defeated.

The amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona now is similar to the one we have defeated. He would like to extend the section 179 expensing provision in the law. We are doing that in the bill. The bill increases the length of time in which the section 179 expense provision would be in law. We would enable that extension to occur until 2010. My Lord, this is 2007. That is not a permanent extension, but it is still, given the constraints we have, a reasonable extension. Everybody likes certainty. We would like a little more certainty in the Senate than we have. But it is still, I think, certainly already in the law and it is not good policy to adopt the amendment of the Senator from Arizona which would extend it for a couple more years but cost about $2 billion, which would be totally unpaid for. If there is one thing the American people want, it is for us to live within our means and not increase the deficit but to try to reduce the deficit. This amendment increases the deficit. We have voted on a similar amendment and it has been rejected. I hope the same is true here.

At the appropriate time, I will move to table the amendment, and I hope we can get that accomplished in the early afternoon so we can move on to the next Kyl amendment and debate that and vote on that amendment as quickly as possible. I hope there are no more amendments. We are getting close. We all want to get a minimum wage bill passed, which is so important to so many people in our country. I think we ought to take the responsible action and dispose of these tax amendments that are not paid for and reject them and get on to final passage on minimum wage, which I hope will be tomorrow.

Madam President, before the Senate votes on the second

amendment by Senator Kyl, the amendment is not offset, not paid for. It would add about $2 billion to our Federal deficit. The Senate rejected a Kyl amendment last week that was similar. I admire the Senator's persistence. He is a firm subscriber to the proverb that if at first you don't succeed, try, try again. I admire that very much.

But there is also another reference, I think, from Ecclesiastes, that essentially there is a time and place for everything. This is not the time and this is not the place to pass this amendment, which adds $2 billion to the national deficit.

I urge my colleagues to support the motion I am about to make, which is to table the amendment. The underlying amendment not only is not paid for, it is unbalanced. We had it packaged together here, and we voted on similar amendments, and it is time to get on with final passage of the minimum wage bill. That is what Americans are looking for. They want to increase the minimum wage. We should no longer dally here, with no disrespect for my colleague from Arizona. We are working on amendments that we worked on, that we had votes on.

I will make the motion and urge my colleagues to vote to table the underlying amendment.

Madam President, I ask 1 minute on leader time on the majority side.

It is very simple. This amendment is not paid for. It is scored as a $2 billion additional hit to the deficit. It is not paid for, let's make that clear.

Second, we are talking about extending what is called section 179, which is the small business expensing provisions in the law. The underlying bill already extends 179 through 2010. It already does. This adds 2 more years at the cost of $2 billion. We have time, maybe this year or next, to extend it when we can pay for it at the appropriate time.

But, again, the underlying bill very clearly takes care of small business expensing needs by extending 179 through 2010. Second, it is not paid for. We should not adopt this amendment.

Madam President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, earlier today President Bush called for renewal of fast-track trade negotiating authority, otherwise known as trade promotion authority, otherwise known as TPA. Fast-track authority expires 6 months from today. Many view this date with fear and trepidation. I do not. I view it as an opportunity to take a hard look at the direction of America's trade policy. It is an opportunity to air differences and an opportunity to find common ground.

Trade policy is a bargain, a bargain struck between the American Government and the American people. Americans trust their Government to use trade policy to expand export opportunities, create jobs, to fuel our economy. In exchange for that trust, Americans expect their Government to make sure that trade works for them, and they expect their Government to take action when it does not. That is the fundamental debate in which we, as a nation, must engage. Does trade work for the American farmer, rancher? Does trade work for American factory workers? Does trade work for the American economy?

I believe it does. I believe trade creates opportunities. I believe trade generates American jobs. I believe trade bolsters our global competitiveness. I believe trade allows us to project America's values to the world. And I believe the alternative, erecting barriers to trade, is self-defeating and will not make anyone better off. That is why, during my years in Congress, I have long supported granting the President fast-track authority. The success of America's ranches and farms, the success of businesses big and small, requires that the President have this authority.

Twelve million American jobs depend on exports. Exports account for a tenth of our country's gross domestic product. Montana exports 60 percent of the wheat grown there.

But there are other voices. Many have deep and legitimate concerns about the effect of trade and globalization. Many equate trade with ballooning deficits, stagnating wages, and job layoffs. Many view the growth of China and India as threats rather than as opportunities. Many point to abhorrent labor and environmental conditions in some of our trading partners. And many no longer trust the Government to do its part to take care of the Americans whom trade leaves behind.

These concerns are real. They are deeply felt. And we cannot ignore them. True leadership requires that we address these concerns head on. The expiration of trade promotion authority allows us to have this debate. It reminds us we cannot consider renewal of this authority in a vacuum. It underscores the paramount importance of restoring America's faith and confidence in our trade policy, a huge opportunity. In the process, we will examine a series of critical issues. These are issues we must address as we consider whether to reauthorize trade promotion authority.

First, we must make trade adjustment assistance, otherwise known as TAA, more reflective of today's innovative economy. TAA is America's commitment to provide wage and health benefits while trade-displaced workers retool, retrain, and find better jobs. A renewed TAA must do what today's program does not. It must be made available to the 8 out of 10 American workers who make their money in service professions. It must apply to all workers displaced by trade, not just those affected by free-trade agreements. The time has come to consider other ways to help workers displaced not just by trade but by other aspects of globalization, including the advance of technology.

Second, we have to address concerns that our trade agreements encourage companies to move jobs to countries where substandard labor and environmental policies occur. We need to find common cause with those who abhor child and sweatshop labor anywhere. We need to acknowledge the justifiable ends of those who want to employ trade to help stop despoliation of the planet. We project our values as Americans when we use our trade agreements to create a race to the top. As our trade agreements require our partners to step up their protection of investments and intellectual property, so our agreements should lead to improvements in our partners' labor and environmental protections.

Third, we cannot conclude more trade agreements without giving Americans the confidence that we vigorously enforce those agreements already on the books. Too many of our partners cheat and maintain bogus barriers against American exports. For example, look at Korea's unscientific ban on beef; look at the illegal subsidies China grants to its manufacturers. But the trade-enforcement tools that Congress created in the 1970s and 1980s, such as section 301, are outdated. They no longer function as intended. It is time to take a hard look at these tools. We should redraft them so they better address the trade barriers that American exporters face in today's global economy.

Fourth, we cannot expect Americans to support trade when they see ever-ballooning trade deficits. Our trade deficit with China this year will approach $300 billion. That is unsustainable. We need to get our balance sheet back in line. That requires us to boost U.S. exports through better enforcement and better export promotion. That requires us to call out countries such as China, possibly even Japan, that use the value of their currency to gain a trade advantage. And it means action at home to improve public and private savings.

Fifth, a successful trade policy means that America must be the most competitive nation in the world. American workers need to know they can compete and they can win on a global playing field. And we need to take a good, hard look at how health care costs, our education system, and tax policies affect America's global competitiveness. As I did in the last Congress, I will push competitiveness at every opportunity. I will work for passage of legislation that will guarantee America's economic preeminence for years to come.

With trade promotion authority about to expire, the locus of trade policy shifts back to Congress. We have both the opportunity and responsibility to create the next trade policy that will guide us and guide this country forward. We need to work together, clearly, obviously, on trade to find answers to the hard questions. We need to work together on trade to shore up our international leadership, sorely needed. And most of all, we need to work together on trade to restore our bargain with the American people.

I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally against both sides.

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

Before the Senate today is the exact same amendment offered by my colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, that the Senate rejected last Thursday. The only difference is that Senator Kyl has modified the amendment to make it even more pernicious; that is, by removing the offset. Thus, the pending amendment would add nearly another $3 billion to the deficit in the next 10 years.

The Senate rejected the Kyl amendment last week, but we are here yet again today considering these same issues. This time around, my colleague does not attempt to offset those cuts. Rather, his amendments would put another $3 billion hole in our budget. The amendment would pile onto a deficit that we are desperately trying to erase.

Many of us support the policy behind these provisions. We would not have included them in our bill if we did not. As I told the Senator from Arizona at our committee markup, if we could have made these provisions permanent, I certainly would have done so. But the underlying substitute amendment is the product of a Finance Committee hearing, deliberation, and markup. It is balanced. It is revenue neutral. And all Members supported it--it passed unanimously--including the Senator from Arizona.

Senators made compromises to get this bill to the floor, and we have done so. I must say, though, I admire the persistence of my good friend from Arizona. He is the original ``energy bunny'' of tax cut amendments. I commend him for that. But he was not successful in committee, and he was not successful on the floor last week. I hope and trust that that was because the Senate would like to provide a balanced package of tax incentives. I hope and trust that the Senate wants a package that does not worsen our deficit. Therefore, I oppose adding another $3 billion in tax provisions to this already $8 billion bill. The $8 billion is paid for. The amendment by the Senator would add another $3 billion and that would not be paid for.

At the appropriate time, I intend to raise a budget point of order against the amendment. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to waive that point of order, which I assume will occur in not too many minutes from now.

I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

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

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 505(a) of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004. On behalf of Senator Kyl, I move to waive the applicable provisions for the consideration of the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Heritage Conservation Extension Act of 2007, along with my good friend Senator Grassley from Iowa.

As we all know, the country, and my home State of Montana, are losing precious agricultural and ranch lands at a record pace. While providing Montana and the Nation with the highest quality food and fiber, these farms and ranches also provide habitat for wildlife and the open spaces, land that many of us take for granted and assume will always be there. Montana has begun to recognize the importance of these lands. We currently have 1,573,411 acres covered by conservation easements. To some, that may seem like a large amount, but this is Montana, a State that covers 93,583,532 acres, making the conservation easements coverage a mere 1.68 percent of all of our lands.

To assure that open space and habitat will be there for future generations, we must help our hardworking farmers and ranchers preserve this precious heritage and their way-of-life.

Conservation easements have been tremendously successful in preserving open space and wildlife habitat. Last year, the Congress recognized this by providing targeted income tax relief to small farmers and ranchers who wish to make a charitable contribution of a qualified conservation easement. The provision allows eligible farmers and ranchers to increase the amounts of deduction that may be taken currently for charitable contributions of qualified conservation easements by raising the Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) limitations to 100 percent and extending the carryover period from 5 years to 15 years. In the case of all landowners, the AGI limitation would be raised from 30 percent to 50 percent.

The Rural Heritage Conservation Extension Act of 2007 would make this allowable deduction permanent, building on the success of conservation easements. Our farmers and ranchers will be able to preserve their important agricultural and ranching lands for future generations, while continuing to operate their businesses. Landowners, conservationists, the Federal Government, and local communities are working together to preserve our precious natural resources.

This legislation is vitally important to Montana, and to every other State in the Nation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Heritage Conservation Extension Act of 2007, along with my good friend Senator Grassley from Iowa.

As we all know, the country, and my home State of Montana, are losing precious agricultural and ranch lands at a record pace. While providing Montana and the Nation with the highest quality food and fiber, these farms and ranches also provide habitat for wildlife and the open spaces, land that many of us take for granted and assume will always be there. Montana has begun to recognize the importance of these lands. We currently have 1,573,411 acres covered by conservation easements. To some, that may seem like a large amount, but this is Montana, a State that covers 93,583,532 acres, making the conservation easements coverage a mere 1.68 percent of all of our lands.

To assure that open space and habitat will be there for future generations, we must help our hardworking farmers and ranchers preserve this precious heritage and their way-of-life.

Conservation easements have been tremendously successful in preserving open space and wildlife habitat. Last year, the Congress recognized this by providing targeted income tax relief to small farmers and ranchers who wish to make a charitable contribution of a qualified conservation easement. The provision allows eligible farmers and ranchers to increase the amounts of deduction that may be taken currently for charitable contributions of qualified conservation easements by raising the Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) limitations to 100 percent and extending the carryover period from 5 years to 15 years. In the case of all landowners, the AGI limitation would be raised from 30 percent to 50 percent.

The Rural Heritage Conservation Extension Act of 2007 would make this allowable deduction permanent, building on the success of conservation easements. Our farmers and ranchers will be able to preserve their important agricultural and ranching lands for future generations, while continuing to operate their businesses. Landowners, conservationists, the Federal Government, and local communities are working together to preserve our precious natural resources.

This legislation is vitally important to Montana, and to every other State in the Nation.

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

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

Mr. President, I want to commend someone who represents the very best of citizens in public service. I am speaking of Jo Anne Barnhart, the Commissioner of Social Security. Unfortunately, her term ended last Friday. I say ``unfortunately'' because she has done a superb job.

Jo Anne Barnhart did not need to take this job. She was doing very well running her own consulting firm. But she took the job for one reason: She wanted to improve the way that the Social Security Administration performs its duties. And SSA is a significantly better agency when Jo Anne left than when she first came on board.

That is not all. Many long-term career employees at SSA have said that she is the best Social Security Commissioner for whom they have worked. And a number of veteran Social Security observers and advocates have said the same thing. She has made a remarkable contribution to that agency.

What has Jo Anne accomplished? Everyone knows that the Social Security Program provides benefits to workers who have retired. And the Social Security Program also provides benefits to the families of workers who have died. What is less well known is that Social Security provides benefits to workers who become disabled and to the families of those workers. This is one of Social Security's major functions.

Determining the benefits that retirees and survivors get is a relatively straightforward process, even where the eligibility rules are very detailed. But the same is not true for benefits for disabled workers.

There, SSA has to determine whether the applicant is permanently and totally disabled. This determination requires a lot of difficult work. For many applicants, the answer is not readily apparent. And the applicant can use several layers of appeals, if denied benefits. These additional layers add to the time that an applicant may have to wait before receiving benefits.

When Jo Anne took over the agency, it could take as much as 4 years for an applicant to be approved for benefits, if the applicant succeeded at the last layer of appeal. A disabled worker waiting for a decision is not earning any money. This can put enormous pressures on the worker and the worker's family.

My case workers in Montana have heard from some of the applicants who have been waiting incredibly long times for a decision. And their stories are harrowing. And the same was true for one Montana applicant who had to wait 4 years to get his disability benefits and who was kind enough to testify before the Finance Committee last year.

Jo Anne was fully aware of this problem when she took over the agency. And she was determined to do something about it.

The first step was to determine why it took so long for applicants to be approved. At her confirmation hearing, Jo Anne indicated that she would study this issue immediately. And she and I agreed that she would report back to me in 6 months.

Jo Anne completed that study and briefed me 6 months later, just as she had promised. Amazingly, this was the first comprehensive study SSA had ever done to determine why it took so long for disability applicants to be approved for benefits.

Jo Anne and her staff put every step involved in the disability application process on one chart. When she completed it, that chart was 25 feet long. Jo Anne deserves great credit for initiating and executing this pioneering study.

The study found that there were two causes of the long waiting times for approval of disability benefits, and Jo Anne set out to tackle each of them. About half of the delays occurred because of huge backlogs of cases. The principal cause of these backlogs is inadequate staffing, and the principal cause of inadequate staffing is lack of budgetary resources. The other half of the waiting times was due to huge inefficiencies in the processing of disability claims.

Jo Anne responded to these challenges. First, she set out to reduce as much of the inefficiency in the disability adjudication process as possible.

She initiated the conversion of the application process from a paper- driven process to a completely electronic process. And she aggressively accelerated this conversion, completing the transformation in record time.

As a result, SSA now has the largest repository of medical evidence in the world. And the new system works. Previously, all evidence and records used during the adjudication process had to be mailed from one SSA office to another and from doctors' offices to SSA offices. This was inefficient, time-consuming, and expensive. Now all of this is accomplished electronically. Jo Anne deserves great credit for these changes.

And Jo Anne initiated a Disability Service initiative. This was a major overhaul of the multiple steps in the disability adjudication process. This initiative brought many improvements.

First, quick decisions are made in cases where the disability is obvious. Second, redundant appeal processes were eliminated. Third, huge amounts of time were saved for some appeals that would normally go to a hearing before an administrative law judge. That is a process that can take well over a year to occur. A new type of legal official was created in the system. This lawyer is given authority to award benefits before the case ever proceeds to a hearing. This dramatically reduces the time for the applicant to get benefits. Many other changes were made as well.

All of these changes are being piloted. It is hoped that these new processes will greatly increase the efficiency by which disability claims are adjudicated. If they do, Jo Anne will have accomplished something truly great.

Jo Anne also initiated action to deal with scarce budgetary resources, the second cause of long delays. She provided detailed and cogent briefings to the Directors of the Office of Management and Budget.

As a result, the President's budgets have requested a significant increase for SSA's administrative costs each year. This occurred at a time when the President's budgets contained little or no increases or even decreases in funding for most appropriated programs.

Unfortunately, through no lack of effort on Jo Anne's part, the amount of money ultimately appropriated for SSA's administrative costs has been substantially below the amount requested by the President each year. This is a problem that needs to be rectified in the future.

One of Jo Anne's finest moments came after the terrible hurricanes,

Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, decimated whole areas of the gulf coast and Florida. GAO reported: ``The Social Security Administration had enhanced planning and pre-established procedures in place to provide immediate emergency payments to the significant number of beneficiaries who evacuated and did not receive their monthly checks. With these procedures in place, the Social Security Administration had the capability to deploy staff and equipment from its 1,300 offices across the Nation to address the increased workload.''

Under Jo Anne's guidance, SSA also successfully implemented some brand new permanent responsibilities without a hitch. For example, SSA was asked to take applications for the low-income subsidy portion of the Medicare prescription drug program. This subsidy allows low-income Medicare beneficiaries to participate in the prescription drug program at no or reduced cost. SSA was also asked to do massive amounts of outreach to find the people who qualified for the subsidies, and it did so.

Jo Anne also guided the implementation of some brand new systems projects. For example, she oversaw the digital recording of hearings. SSA used to record all hearings before its administrative law judges with regular cassette tapes. These tapes were difficult to ship and were often lost during transit. Jo Anne and her team spearheaded the effort to have hearings recorded digitally.

It is clear that Commissioner Barnhart accomplished an extraordinary number of achievements for SSA. She has reason to be proud, and the country owes her a huge debt of gratitude.

I wish her the very best in whatever endeavors she takes on after she leaves SSA. But we will sorely miss her.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be temporarily laid aside and that Senator Kyl be recognized to offer an amendment.

Mr. President, I say to my good friend from Arizona, there is always a Member on our side who would like to give some brief remarks. I ask, when might the Senator be ready to offer his amendment?

Mr. President, I asked unanimous consent that the pending amendments be laid aside so Senator Kyl can offer his amendment.

Mr. President, for the interest of moving this along the rest of the day, there are two Senators who wish to speak, and it is my hope after they speak we can get some other amendments up and start voting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, be allowed to speak for 10 minutes, and following Senator Brown, that the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Sanders, be allowed to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask what the Senators are going to speak on.

The Senator from Arizona wants to speak on the amendment?

And the Senator from Missouri?

For how long?

So the understanding is that the Senator from Vermont will speak for 10 minutes, the Senator from New Hampshire for 10, the Senator from Missouri for less than 10, and then Mr. Kyl for 10 minutes.

I ask unanimous consent that the order of speakers be as just stated.

Mr. President, I will speak for just a minute. I very much appreciate the remarks of our very good friend from West Virginia. He is right. He is always right, especially on matters of procedure. It is my thought that we will have no more than four. In

honor of the Senator's points, I deeply appreciate that sentiment. We won't go beyond the four. In an attempt to try to move the bill forward, we are trying to get floor speakers and, hopefully, get the amendments up so that there is enough opportunity to offer their amendments and we can vote on the amendments. But the Senator's basic point is absolutely correct.

Yes.

At this point.

Yes. I thank the Senator from Arizona.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside and I be allowed to call up my amendment, No. 206.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside and that I be allowed to call up my amendment No. 207.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 2:05 p.m. today be for the debate on the Baucus amendment No. 207 and the Bunning amendment No. 119 and that the time run concurrently on both amendments, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Baucus and Bunning; that at 2:05 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Baucus amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Bunning amendment; with 2 minutes of debate equally divided between the

votes; with no second-degree amendment in order to either amendment prior to the vote.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment No. 207 which was just reported. This is essentially a substitute amendment to the Bunning amendment No. 119.

My amendment is quite simple. It says that Congress should repeal the 1993 tax on Social Security benefits and eliminate wasteful spending such as spending on unnecessary tax loopholes--and I might say there are many of those--in order to fully offset the cost of such repeal. My alternative also explains that if we do not fully offset the cost of repeal, we will be paying substantially, among other things, more interest to foreign creditors because we will be not paying for it, essentially--and so increasing the deficit, essentially.

This amendment of mine, the alternative, I think is the better amendment. Why? Because we have to be concerned about fiscal discipline. Unlike the underlying small business tax package reported out by the Finance Committee, the Bunning amendment is not paid for. Indeed, to repeal this provision now, as Senator Bunning proposes, would drain over $200 billion from the Treasury over the next 10 years.

Furthermore, the Bunning amendment would eliminate a dedicated source of revenue for Medicare. As my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know, we recently set up a trigger to warn us when 45 percent of Medicare funding comes from general revenues and, of course, the Bunning amendment would move us closer to that trigger point.

The dedicated funding source that would be eliminated by the Bunning amendment helps pay for hospitals, nursing care, home care services for the elderly, all paid for by Medicare. I think a drastic reduction in that funding source, that is $200 billion worth, would impair the Federal Government's ability to pay for hospital and nursing home care under Medicare.

Furthermore, a loss of revenue such as that in the Bunning amendment will make it even more difficult for us because it fails to address long-term solvency and, in fact, makes long-term solvency of Social Security more in peril, not less. Such a change as Senator Bunning proposes is not paid for and would do great harm to both Social Security and to Medicare.

I strongly urge my colleagues to think carefully. There is an option to vote for the Baucus amendment and an option to vote on the Bunning amendment. The first vote would be on the Baucus amendment. The Baucus amendment is more in the nature of a sense of the Senate, and I think it is the better course because, clearly, if we are to reduce the taxes Senator Bunning proposes in his amendment, we have to do it thoughtfully and not in a way that is not paid for, in a way that threatens and imperils not only the deficit but also Medicare and Social Security.

Mr. President, I see my colleague on the floor now, and I yield the floor so my colleague can speak.

Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?

I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin.

Mr. President, might I inquire, what is the regular order?

Mr. President, I oppose the Bunning amendment. It is a perfect example of why we do things in committee; namely, here we are on the Senate floor. This is an amendment that raises the budget deficit by $200 billion. It has never been discussed. We haven't taken it up in the Finance Committee. That is not a good way to legislate.

Second, it has the adverse consequence of increasing the deficit by $200 billion. That is not a good thing to do, with all the ramifications that an increase of $200 billion in the deficit will have. I strongly oppose the amendment.

Remember, the way to work legislation, generally, is through committees, as much as we possibly can. That way we will get a better product. My goal in the Finance Committee is to work as a committee. If we work as a committee, we are more likely to get better legislation rather than ad hoc legislation out here on the floor of the Senate.

I urge opposition to the amendment.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 505(a) of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent there be 40 minutes of debate to run concurrently on the Baucus amendment No. 206 and the Smith amendment No. 113, the time controlled as follows: 30 minutes under the control of Senator Baucus or his designee, 10 minutes under the control of Senator Smith; that no further second-degree amendment be in order to either amendment; that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided between the votes; that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate vote in relation to the Baucus amendment to be followed by a vote in relation to the Smith amendment, as amended.

Madam President, I will speak for a few minutes. Clearly education is one of our country's highest priorities. I don't think there is anybody in this body or in the other body on the other side of this Capitol who will disagree with that statement. It is certainly one of the most important, if not the most important. The pending Smith amendment, however, is not the right way to address this issue.

First, the Senator did not offer his amendment in the committee of jurisdiction. There have not been hearings on this amendment. The committee has not had a chance to work on the amendment, and it shows. First, the amendment is not paid for. It would increase the deficit by $35 billion over 10 years. No. 2, it leaves in place overly complex tax provisions. It needs simplification. We clearly need to consolidate the myriad different education credits and deductions with which the people in the country are faced and have an almost impossible time trying to figure out. This amendment does not do the job.

It also includes controversial provisions such as the Coverdell tax cuts for K-12 education, provisions I personally favor but I know many Members of this body have deep public policy concerns with. We need to focus on education. As chairman of the Committee on Finance, I pledge that this committee will work aggressively to develop a comprehensive education package that includes simplification of all the myriad current tax provisions and hopefully will be much more effective--do what it is supposed to do--and will also address the various needs of various people in our society, especially low-income people who have a hard time getting to college or getting into a voc-ed school, a community college, a tribal community college, or whatnot.

We in America are in sixth place in a competitive index in the world and most of that is due to a lower standing in higher education, clearly behind Nordic countries and Singapore. To compete in a global economy, we need to focus to improve our educational system. It is my goal, if I have anything to do with it, in 3 or 4 or 5 years it will be known in the world that it is in America where the action is, it is in America where they are starting to get it right, they are starting to address and to figure out ways to make sure their kids--and a little older kids--are very well educated; where we Americans are so proud of what we are doing and other countries will recognize what we are doing.

It will take work to get there, but that should be the goal, and I am doing what I can to help us get there. We know about the increase in college tuition and all the problems that is causing. My State of Montana has an especially difficult time. More than two-thirds of the students in my State receive grant aid. Frankly, that is a nationwide figure. In my State it is even higher; it is 80 percent. We need education assistance. Mr. President, 14,000 individuals from my State claim more than $35 million in tuition fee deductions; nationwide, more than 4.5 million people together claimed about $10 billion in tuition fee deductions. Again, simplify, target them, make it work so we are doing what we should be doing.

Let me talk for a few minutes about how complicated these education provisions are. First, we have the HOPE scholarships and the Lifetime Learning credits.

I might say to my colleagues, there are nine other types of tax benefits for education. Here they all are. I am sure everybody knows all about these and I am sure everybody understands them completely. First, the student loan interest deduction; next, tax-free treatment of canceled student loans; tax-free student loan repayment assistance; Coverdell education savings accounts featuring tax-free earnings; qualified tuition programs which also feature tax-free earnings; penalty-free early distributions from any type of retirement account arrangement for education costs; allowing families to cash in savings bonds for education costs without having to pay tax on the interest on those; tax-free educational benefits for employers; business deductions for work-related education. We have over 11 that I can count, and I don't think anybody knows them, not one person--maybe one person. Not very many people. If we have a hard time in this body understanding those, think of the poor students. Think of the families. Think of the people trying to make some sense out of all this.

To some degree, voters in November were saying to us in Washington and around the country: People in Washington aren't listening to us. We have problems. They are not listening to us. Congress is a bit dysfunctional. What are they doing about education? We all know the need. What are they doing?

My goal in the committee, working very closely with Senator Kennedy of the HELP Committee, is, together with their authorizing legislation and our tax legislation, to get the ball rolling so we are focusing on education. It is so important to me.

We also, I might say, need to focus on the neediest. Current tax credits and deductions don't help the neediest. They don't have any income to pay income tax on. It is not targeted, all these lifetime scholarships and HOPE scholarships, and so forth. We had a great hearing in the Committee on Finance. Maybe while we consolidate and simplify--a very strong recommendation, I might say, by all those who appeared before us, is combined Pell grants. So many students get their aid through Pell grants. That is certainly true in community colleges, it is true in tribal colleges. Those are lower income students. It is Pell grants that they need and we need to boost Pell grant levels even higher.

Also, working with Pell grants, make a simplified tax credit--maybe refundable. Lower income people need the money upfront. It doesn't make any difference to have it later on, a year later when they are figuring out tax returns. It has to be upfront. That is another recommendation given by a very impressive, persuasive witness before our committee a short time ago.

We also need to think about covering not only tuition but also other education expenses. What about books, room and board, and so forth? The current major provisions cover tuition, tuition only. I think it is true that some of this has to be increased. Which ones, that is the question.

Frankly, as we are talking about helping teachers with greater deductions, my view is: Find a way to give teachers greater pay. That is the real solution here, rather than saying you have to get a deduction so you can help pay for your students' expenses. We need to get teachers better pay. Even though we don't have primary jurisdiction, we are certainly creative around

here. We can figure out a way here in the Congress to help States pay better salaries to teachers so we get even better people teaching school than we have now. We have good teachers, but we need to also make sure they have the pay they need.

The underlying minimum wage bill is paid for. This amendment is not paid for. The underlying total small business package is $8.3 billion and we pay for it. This is a $35 billion package, four or five times that, but it is not paid for. It was not discussed in committee. Slapdash here on the floor. That is not the way to do legislation. As I said many times, and I keep saying it because I believe it, in the Committee on Finance we are going to work as a committee because that is the best way to legislate. That means working with Democrats and with Republicans in a give and take to get a committee product. I pledge to my colleagues we are going to work mightily to get a very good education product from our committee in conjunction with the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, so the right hand knows what the left hand is doing.

I do believe the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. With the two of us working together in cooperation from both sides of the aisle--and Senator Enzi, I am quite certain, has the same views--we are going to do something about education here. I fully believe that will happen.

Now I yield 10 minutes to the senior Senator from Arkansas.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Arkansas and I be allowed to have a dialog without Senators losing the right to the floor.

I would say to my good friend from Arkansas that I very much want to reassure her. She is such a tremendous member of our committee and such an able Senator from her State, and I know her State is very proud of her. But the answer is definitely totally 100 percent yes. Education is one of my passions. It is so important. It means so much to me, and I know it does for all of us. I love going to schools and seeing the teaching in schools. It is one of the best parts of this job.

I also wish to make sure that our kids and grandkids have the same quality of life, the same standard of living that we have been able to enjoy, and that means, given the global competition we face from other countries such as China and India, and so forth, we need the best, and we are going to have the best.

So I say to my good friend, in the Committee on Finance, Senator Grassley and I are a very close team on the committee and we are going to move aggressively on ways to boost the availability and to help people get the very best education, in conjunction with Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi, when No Child Left Behind is brought up, and other authorizing legislation on education comes up, so that we can do something that makes us all on both sides of the aisle proud to address education.

Madam President, could I ask the time allotment on both sides?

I don't see the Senator from Oregon on the floor. I don't know if other Senators wish to speak on the pending amendment. I don't see other Senators on the floor. I would ask my good friend for a little bit of assistance in this matter.

Madam President, we have two votes coming up shortly, and I would like to speak to a couple of points on my amendment. Essentially, my amendment is a sense of the Senate that we will, and must, work under the provisions we have been discussing in the last few minutes. It says we believe the taxpayers play such an important role making education more affordable, and it also says we should pay for it. That is something I must say, and I will say, as my good friend from Minnesota as well as other Senators have said, that there are a lot of ways to find the so-called pay-fors we should find, the so- called pay-fors, in closing tax loopholes. There is a lot of constructive talk--in fact, I initiated a lot of it--about the tax gap, about $350 billion of income taxes owed to the Government--owed but not collected--$350 billion every year owed but not collected--without raising any taxes, without passing any legislation that increases taxes. That is $350 billion that should be collected, and we are not collecting it. I am not saying we could get it all, but I am saying we should get a lot of it. Part of that is payroll taxes that is not collected. The estimates are $50 billion, $60 billion in payroll taxes that are not being collected. Well, adding $30 billion, $40 billion a year to the Social Security trust fund wouldn't hurt. Adding a few billion dollars to the hospital insurance Part A trust fund wouldn't hurt. We have to work hard to find that.

My point is we can find the so-called pay-fors when we do the things we need to do. So this is not some big pipe dream: Sure, we are going to talk about this stuff. I am saying we are going to enact the kinds of provisions we are talking about. It could be up to $35 billion, which is the amount contained in this amendment but which is not paid for. As I mentioned, it is under the alternative amendment, that is the amendment offered by the Senator from Oregon, which doesn't address the complexity, it doesn't address a lot of real problems.

I said, perhaps a bit unfairly, it is a slapdash amendment on the floor, but it is true it is an amendment of first impression. This is the first we have seen it. It never came up in the committee. I am trying, in a small way in this Congress, to try to anticipate subjects that are going to come up on the floor, anticipate major amendments that are going to come up on the floor, in the committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Finance, and have hearings on them. Let's get experts to come and tell us about them so we can modify them and make them work, rather than seeing them for the first time on the floor and wondering what in the heck this is and what it is all about.

So I would urge my colleagues to support the sense of the Senate amendment which I am offering. I think it is the right way to get at the problem. As I have said many times, I pledge to my colleagues that we on the Finance Committee are going to dig into this. We are going to find ways to make sure we have the best education tax provisions we can possibly get. Therefore, I urge a positive vote on my amendment. After that, I encourage Senators to vote against the Smith amendment. He means well, he is a good guy, but there is a time and place for everything. This is not the time and place for the Smith amendment. There will be a time and place later on this year for those subjects and the able Senator from Oregon is a member of the committee and I know we are going to hear from him on his amendments and he will be right. These provisions we can address and will address.

So I am prepared to yield back my time. I know the Senator from Massachusetts was seeking time to speak, but apparently he no longer is.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, to be charged equally to both sides.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Baucus amendment.

I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time.

I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, I appreciate the admonition and good counsel of my good friend from Oregon. My mother used to say: If you can do it, do it now. My mother used to also say: If you are going to do it now, do it right the first time. This is not doing it right the first time.

We rejected, about an hour ago, a similar amendment; that is, an amendment that was not offered in committee. I do not mean to be pejorative, but it is sort of a slapdash amendment, thought up, not considered in committee.

This amendment is just too complex. It causes a big increase in the budget deficit. It is not paid for. I have a whole list of reasons why we should not adopt this amendment. Essentially, we will get to these issues in committee, and that will be the right time and place to deal with these issues.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 505(a) of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have the highest regard for the Senator from Arizona, as well as my very good friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley. They neglected to tell you about the pay-for. First of all, this amendment is moving in the right direction to extend the leasehold improvement. However, in the committee, we tried to get a balanced package that also extends provisions for WOTC and other provisions to get it balanced. This amendment addresses one side of the equation. It is not balanced because it doesn't extend for the other side of the equation, which is the work opportunity tax credit. The primary problem I have with this amendment is the pay-for.

Essentially this amendment, offered by the Senator from Arizona, prevents, to a large degree, parents trying to get a good education for their kids. These are parents who work for various educational institutions. It could be kindergarten, high school. It could be a college. Under current law, a lot of people--janitors, cafeteria workers--take a cut in pay to work for institutions, knowing they will get a break in their tuition. This amendment takes that away. This amendment takes away a tax break for that person who has been working 8, 10, 15 years at an institution, knowing that his or her child, who may be a junior or sophomore in college, is there to get a good education. This amendment takes that incentive away. It cuts people off midstream. Again, these are not the children of professors. They tend to be the children of people who work, the plumbers who work at college universities, and so forth.

This applies to all private education. It could be parochial, nonparochial. We all know examples of parents who sacrifice to get their kids through school. This amendment takes away that break that those parents are now getting.

It is not a good thing. Earlier today, we were talking about ways to expand tax credits and incentives for people so they can get an education. This amendment takes away incentives for people to get a good education. It is the wrong amendment. The pay-for is not correct. We should, therefore, not agree to the amendment. At the appropriate time, I will move to table.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

I will be brief.

The argument by the Senator from Arizona is not apt. It is a false analogy. Why? Because we are talking in the main about parents who currently are working, who are currently relying upon the current tax provisions. We are not talking about those who may or may not be considering going to that institution. We are talking about those currently working there. This will be taken away from them. Some of these people are working hard. They are taking a big cut in pay to work at an educational institution so their kids get educated. We are saying: take it away. You have been working there.

We are leaving that family high and dry. I think it is the wrong thing to do.

There is a proper time to deal with these provisions. This is not the time. It is a bad amendment anyway. Let's figure out ways to give benefits for kids to go to school, not to take them away.

I yield back my time, move to table the amendment, and ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Madam President, since the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, Congress has required employers to pay a minimum wage. Congress enacted the current general minimum wage of $5.15 an hour in 1996. That works out to be about $10,712 a year. Currently, about 2 million workers get paid the Federal minimum wage or less.

A decade has passed since the last increase. That marks the longest period in history without an adjustment to the minimum wage. During that time, a majority of States have enacted minimum wages higher than the current Federal level. This includes my home State of Montana.

Montanans recognized that the minimum wage must be increased. I am proud that in November our State voted to raise that State's minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $6.15 an hour. It was a step in the right direction.

An increase in the minimum wage would affect millions more than those who earn minimum wage because many workers earn slightly more than minimum wage and may also see an increase.

Some worry that an increase in the minimum wage will burden small businesses. Small businesses create jobs, economic opportunity, and technological innovation.

Smaller businesses employ a disproportionate share of workers earning the minimum wage. Representatives of small businesses have, therefore, argued that any increase should be accompanied by tax incentives targeted for small businesses in order to lower their costs.

There are about 23 million small businesses in our country. Businesses with fewer than 500 employees represent more than 99.9 percent of all American businesses. They pay nearly half the total American private payroll. They have generated 60 to 80 percent of the new jobs annually over the last decade, and they employ 41 percent of high-tech workers.

Small business is particularly important in rural States such as 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 of this year 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 considered 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 that bill by unanimous voice vote, and the majority leader included that bill in its entirety in his amendment to the bill before us today.

The substitute would help business owners to afford new equipment and property for their businesses by extending section 179 expensing for another year.

In order 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. While these large purchases are necessary to operate a business, they generally require depreciation across a number of years. But depreciation requires additional bookkeeping. Section 179 expensing allows for immediate 100 percent deduction of the cost of most personal property purchased for use in a business. In

2007, small business owners could 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 substitute would allow small business owners to quickly recover the cost of improvements to their establishments through extension and expansion of the 15-year straight line appreciation period for leaseholds and restaurant improvements.

Allowing retailers and restaurants to use a 15-year straight line depreciation period means that when an entrepreneur opens a business and remodels the property, that investment could be recovered over a period of time more closely reflecting wear and tear. It used to be 39 years.

In 2004, the American Jobs Creation Act shortened the cost recovery of certain leasehold improvements and restaurant property for 39 years to 15 years for the remainder of 2004 and 2005. The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 extended this provision to the end of 2007.

At the Finance Committee minimum wage hearing held January 10, small business owners testified that a shorter 15-year recovery period for restaurant and building leasehold property reflects the true economic life of the improvements. And they testified that businesses put more money into their operations if they know they can recover their improvement costs over 15 years instead of 39.

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

These are changes that Senator Conrad, Senator Kerry, Senator Snowe, and Senator Kyl have championed.

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

WOTC, otherwise known as the work opportunity tax credit, encourages business to hire workers who might not otherwise find work. These employers teach workers new skills and how to be a good employee. The workers serve our food, sell us goods, paint our houses, and provide care to our sick and elderly.

WOTC, the work opportunity tax credit, has been remarkably successful. By reducing expenditures on public assistance, WOTC is highly cost effective. The business community is highly supportive of these credits. Especially industries such as retail and restaurants that hire many low-skilled workers find it useful.

The substitute would extend WOTC for 5 years, and the substitute would expand the credit to make it available to employers who hire veterans disabled after 9/11, something I think is very important for us to do.

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 and do not know what they are going to do once they return home. We need to help these young men and women, and a modest tax incentive to get them back in the workforce is a good place to start.

This is an issue the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Salazar, championed.

I think we should make WOTC permanent. Senator Snowe and I introduced a bill to do just that. But to accommodate other Senators' priorities, the committee agreed to a 5-year extension in the bill that is now included in the substitute.

The substitute helps small businesses by modifying S corporation rules. These modifications reduce the effect of what some call the sting tax; that is, these modifications improve the viability of community banks.

These are changes that Senator Lincoln and Senator Hatch have championed.

These are all important ways to help small businesses 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.

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

The language included in the substitute is a responsible package that will ensure the continued growth and success of small businesses. And we have also paid for it. Most of the offsets are proposals 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, known as SILOs. These deals are 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 Internal Revenue Service says it has 1,500 of these deals under audit involving billions--yes, billions--of dollars. At a minimum, it is time to shut these foreign deals down. There are domestic deals, too, but this provision only affects foreign deals.

Another offset doubles fines, penalties, and interest on taxes owed as a result of using certain abusive offshore financial arrangements to avoid paying taxes. Taxpayers will 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 substitute closes a corporate loophole used by companies that reinvented themselves as foreign corporations to avoid paying taxes in our country. In March 2002, Senator Grassley and I made it clear to those who put profits ahead of patriotism did so at their own peril. The substitute would treat those who moved offshore after that date like a U.S. company, and the substitute would make those companies pay U.S. taxes.

Further, under the substitute, companies that paid to settle Government investigations or that paid punitive damages ordered by the courts will be prohibited from taking tax deductions for those payments.

Deducting these amounts can reduce the true cost of these settling by as much as a third. Deducting these amounts would effectively shift the tax burden onto the backs of other taxpayers who pay what they rightfully owe. Those deductions should, therefore, be prohibited.

The hard-working American taxpayers we are trying to help in this substitute should not have to pay more 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 that engage in questionable behavior.

Another offset would limit the annual amount of nonqualified deferred compensation for corporate executives. Rank-and-file workers generally have to pay taxes on their compensation when they earn it. The exception is deferred compensation provided through qualified retirement plans with statutory limits on contributions and benefits. A 401(k) is the best example.

Management, on the other hand, has no limit on the amount that can be deferred to nonqualified arrangements--no limit. The substitute sets the annual limit at the lesser of 100 percent of taxable compensation or $1 million.

These are sound changes. I urge my colleagues to support the substitute.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a Montanan who died Saturday night at his home in Libby, MT. Libby is a small town up in the northwest corner of my State.

Les Skramstad was not only an outspoken advocate for his town, which was horribly wronged at the hands of W.R. Grace, but he was also my friend.

I first met Les in Libby in the year 2000, shortly after news reports attributed hundreds of deaths to asbestos exposure from decades of vermiculite mining there.

We sat down in Gayla Benefield's living room. There were about 25 people who were very ill. Over huckleberry pie and coffee, the group explained to me the horrific legacy Grace had left behind. And although I had read the reports and briefing papers on the situation, that was the first time I had seen asbestos exposure up close. And, it was gut wrenching. I will never forget it--as long as I live.

They opened their hearts and poured out unimaginable stories of suffering and tragedy. I was absolutely stunned. It was at that moment that I vowed to myself that I'll do whatever it takes to help Libby become whole again.

Entire families--fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, sons and daughters are all sick. Hundreds are dead.

They are bound together by one thing: their exposure to tremolite asbestos, mined by W.R. Grace.

That night at Gayla's, when I first met Les, he watched me closely all evening. He was wary and came up to me after his friends and neighbors had finished speaking.

Les said to me, ``Senator, a lot of people have come to Libby and told us they would help, then they leave and we never hear from them again.''

``Max,'' he said, ``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.''

Les worked at the vermiculite mine starting in 1959. He told me about the dust he swept every day--off of three separate floors at the mine. And although company officials said the dust was harmless, that's what ultimately took his life. And that dust is what has made his wife and children sick, too.

You see, that dust was laden with tremolite asbestos fibers. When he got home, he would hug his wife. His kids would jump up in his lap.

I think he was less worried about his own fate. It was as if Les had accepted that he was going to die. But the thing that got to him most was that he brought that dust home with him. He wanted justice for his family and friends. That night I told him I would do all that I could. That I wouldn't back down. 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 knew Les would. I also knew he didn't have to because I had already vowed to myself I would do all I could, even without Les' encouragement.

Over the years Les and I worked together to help Libby. We became friends in the process. I counted on seeing him every time I went to Libby. I have been up to Libby almost 20 times since then. I talked to Les on the phone. I visited him in the hospital.

Les is my inspiration in the fight to get Libby a clean bill of health and justice for its residents. He is the face of hundreds and thousands of sick and exposed folks in this tiny Montana community.

Les--working with others in the community--became an outspoken advocate for Libby. He put a personal face on asbestos contamination. He provided a straightforward look into the lives of people hurt by Grace and the poisonous asbestos fibers they left behind. Les was a true Western gentleman. And he was very effective.

It has been 8 years since this tragedy first came to light. We have made a lot of progress in Libby.

We launched the Center for Asbestos Related Diseases, which has screened and provided health care to thousands of Libby residents.

We kicked the EPA into gear and got Libby listed as a national Superfund site.

We secured millions for cleanup, health care, and economic development in Libby.

But sadly, there is still much more to do. Much more. Libby residents deserve compensation for their injuries. They deserve health care. They deserve to see those responsible go to prison for what they did. They deserve to know that their town is clean of asbestos.

What I knew about Les makes this news very sad to me, personally. I am sad for his family. I am sad for his friends. I am sad for Libby.

I am also angry at W.R. Grace, which knowingly poisoned its workers. I am angry that justice still has not been done in Libby. I am angry that we haven't been able to do more.

But we won't give up. We will keep fighting for Les and Libby. Les' passing only furthers my resolve to try harder. To do more. We won't let up. We will not stop.

When I get tired, I think of Les. And I can't shake what he asked me to do.

In all of my years as an elected official, helping Libby is among the most personally compelling things I have ever been called on to do.

I will keep the promise I made to Les that night at Gayla's house.

Les was a fighter to the end. He recently minced no words about his feelings towards Grace.

He told the Missoulian newspaper, quote: ``There's not a doubt in my mind that [they] are guilty of murder.''

``I started in 1959 and I was as healthy as a horse,'' he said. ``I knew all the guys that worked there, 135 employees when I was there. And there's five of us left alive. Five. The rest of them are gone.''

Now, sadly, so is Les.

The Book of Proverbs says: ``righteousness delivers from death.'' And if that is true, then Les will certainly be delivered.

My prayers are with Les' wife Norita, his family and friends, and the people of Libby.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the following fellows, interns, and detailees of the staff of the Committee on Finance be allowed on the Senate floor for duration of debate on the minimum wage bill: Mary Baker, Tom Louthan, Sarah Shepherd, David Ashner, Gretchen Hector, Molly Keenan, Sarah Butler, and Ryan Majerus.

Madam President, pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I submit for publication in the Congressional Record the rules of the Committee on Finance for the 110th Congress, adopted by the committee on January 17, 2007. I ask unanimous consent that the rules be printed.