Floor Statements

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

Madam President, on April 17, Walter Nevada, the oldest living Shoshone-Bannock tribal elder and remaining original allottee on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation passed away. He was 101 years old. Walter was a distinguished member of one of the oldest tribes in Idaho. He was a religious man of wisdom respected by his people, a great teacher and leader.

The government of the Shoshone Bannock Tribes has existed for many generations. Traditional tribal government was based upon small bands of closely related families. Today the tribes are organized as a sovereign government, providing many services to tribal members and non-Indians with revenues from agriculture, business enterprises, tourism and many other operations.

Even though thousands of years have passed, the Shoshone and Bannock Tribes continue to leave an indelible mark on the ongoing history of North America and Idaho. One example is the recent successful endeavor of the Shoshone Bannocks to certify a tribal member as a Federal inspector of underground fuel storage tanks. This is the first time that this collaboration between a tribe and the Environmental Protection Agency has occurred, and demonstrates the Shoshone Bannock Tribes' commitment to working with the U.S. Government on the critical issue of ground water protection. Also, working in coordination with State and Federal agencies, the Shoshone Bannocks have an active air quality monitoring program. The tribe continues to successfully preserve its history and way of life, while recognizing and promoting its critical role in stewardship of the environment. I have been pleased to work with them in the past, and look forward to doing so in the future.

Mr. President, today, with my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, I rise to introduce a bill to amend the Idaho Admissions Act of July 3, 1890, to permit Idaho to administer Morrill Act lands and the proceeds there from in accordance with contemporary investment standards.

The State of Idaho has been working to update its management of endowed assets received as part of statehood from the Federal Government to ensure the maximum longterm financial return to the beneficiaries. Key to endowment reform is the implementation of contemporary investment principles that require asset diversification to reduce the risk of loss and that permit a trustee to deduct reasonable costs of administration of the assets normally incurred by a prudent fiduciary. Of the Federal grants to Idaho as part of statehood, only the Morrill Act limits investments in bonds of the U.S. or Idaho and precludes deducting reasonable administrative expenses incurred by the trustee. This bill would allow the State of Idaho to administer the Morrill Act assets under the same fiduciary standards now applicable to all of Idaho's other federally granted endowments.

Additionally, a broad group of State, Federal, and private interests, including the University of Idaho College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, the State of Idaho, United Dairymen of Idaho and Allied Industry, College of Southern Idaho, the Idaho Cattle Association, Idaho Wool Growers, the Idaho

National Laboratory, and Federal agencies have joined together in developing plans for the Idaho Center for Livestock and Environmental Studies to serve as a premier center for research and education in dairy and beef science. The important mission of the center is to enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Idaho, the pacific Northwest, and the Nation by furthering the educational and scientific mission of the University of Idaho and its public/private partners, by providing a state-of-the-art animal research facility capable of large- scale research that provides sound scientific results and educational opportunities intended to: protect our air, land and water, improve the welfare and productivity of our livestock, encourage the efficient use of energy and capital, and enhance workforce and economic development.

The University of Idaho, as a partner in the project and beneficiary of the Morrill Act endowment, is well positioned to utilize endowment assets to both continue to carry out the educational purposes and maintain the underlying real estate endowment while contributing to the project. However, modernization of the management of endowed assets needs to occur in order for such a worthy project to move forward.

That is why the legislation Senator Craig and I are introducing today will provide more flexibility while allowing for the allocation of management expenses in the same fashion as other State endowments, expand investment authority to match other State endowments, and provide for the use of the earnings from management of the sale of endowed lands to be used for the acquisition, construction and improvements for the operation of research farms for teaching and research purposes.

I ask that my colleagues act on this measure in a timely manner.

Mr. President, today, with my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, I rise to introduce a bill to amend the Idaho Admissions Act of July 3, 1890, to permit Idaho to administer Morrill Act lands and the proceeds there from in accordance with contemporary investment standards.

The State of Idaho has been working to update its management of endowed assets received as part of statehood from the Federal Government to ensure the maximum longterm financial return to the beneficiaries. Key to endowment reform is the implementation of contemporary investment principles that require asset diversification to reduce the risk of loss and that permit a trustee to deduct reasonable costs of administration of the assets normally incurred by a prudent fiduciary. Of the Federal grants to Idaho as part of statehood, only the Morrill Act limits investments in bonds of the U.S. or Idaho and precludes deducting reasonable administrative expenses incurred by the trustee. This bill would allow the State of Idaho to administer the Morrill Act assets under the same fiduciary standards now applicable to all of Idaho's other federally granted endowments.

Additionally, a broad group of State, Federal, and private interests, including the University of Idaho College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, the State of Idaho, United Dairymen of Idaho and Allied Industry, College of Southern Idaho, the Idaho Cattle Association, Idaho Wool Growers, the Idaho

National Laboratory, and Federal agencies have joined together in developing plans for the Idaho Center for Livestock and Environmental Studies to serve as a premier center for research and education in dairy and beef science. The important mission of the center is to enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Idaho, the pacific Northwest, and the Nation by furthering the educational and scientific mission of the University of Idaho and its public/private partners, by providing a state-of-the-art animal research facility capable of large- scale research that provides sound scientific results and educational opportunities intended to: protect our air, land and water, improve the welfare and productivity of our livestock, encourage the efficient use of energy and capital, and enhance workforce and economic development.

The University of Idaho, as a partner in the project and beneficiary of the Morrill Act endowment, is well positioned to utilize endowment assets to both continue to carry out the educational purposes and maintain the underlying real estate endowment while contributing to the project. However, modernization of the management of endowed assets needs to occur in order for such a worthy project to move forward.

That is why the legislation Senator Craig and I are introducing today will provide more flexibility while allowing for the allocation of management expenses in the same fashion as other State endowments, expand investment authority to match other State endowments, and provide for the use of the earnings from management of the sale of endowed lands to be used for the acquisition, construction and improvements for the operation of research farms for teaching and research purposes.

I ask that my colleagues act on this measure in a timely manner.

Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, for the work he has done on this bill. He shares my grave concerns about the devastating impact that legal interpretations of Public Law 86-272 are having on foreign and interstate commerce. I'm pleased that we can work together in a bipartisan effort to make changes to a law that is in serious need of updating and clarification in view of the more service-oriented economy we have today driven in large part by modern technology's profound transformation of business transactions. This is why we are introducing the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2007, or BATSA, today.

Congress has a Constitutional responsibility to ensure that interstate commerce is not unduly burdened by State actions, including unfair and burdensome taxation of such commerce. Public Law 86-272 was enacted almost 50 years ago, for just these purposes. Ways of conducting multi-state business have changed, and, in the absence of any clarifying legislation, some state courts have interpreted taxation activity under an ``economic presence'' approach. This approach does not reflect the intent or spirit of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution; furthermore, it creates a climate of uncertainty that inhibits business expansion and innovation. Businesses have to take into account the very real possibility that they will be taxed multiple times for the same business activity. These ``business activity taxes'' are certainly appropriate when a business has a physical presence in a State; these taxes are inappropriate when imposed by a State where that business's customer happens to reside, but in which the business has no physical presence.

States' efforts to impose improper business activity taxes have been furthered by the Supreme Court's recent silence on this issue. Recent State court rulings are in conflict with the high Court's ruling in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota in 1992. In that ruling,

the Supreme Court prohibited States from forcing out-of-state corporations to collect sales and use taxes unless such corporation had a physical presence in the taxing State. As my colleague from New York pointed out a few minutes ago, State courts in both New Jersey and West Virginia have held that the physical presence test in Quill only applies to sales and use taxes, not business activity taxes. I share my colleague's deep concern with the fact that the appeals of these two cases to the Supreme Court were denied certiorari just last week. This denial underscores the urgency of BATSA.

This effort by a large number of States to impose business activity taxes based on economic presence has the potential to open a Pandora's Box of negative implications for businesses. Without clarification by Congress, States will be free to enact revenue-raising nexus legislation and policies that, by definition, will not and cannot take into account the national impact of such activities. The eleventh-hour enactment of economic nexus legislation by the New Hampshire State Legislature just days after the Supreme Court denial of certiorari in the New Jersey and West Virginia cases is a sign of things to come. For many businesses, this will serve as a death knell for growth and expansion.

BATSA will help clarify the intent of Public Law 86-272. BATSA codifies the ``physical presence'' standard and will eliminate confusion for State tax administrators and businesses alike. It's consistent with current law and the notion that a tax should not be imposed by a State unless that State provides benefits or protections to the taxpayer. BATSA clarifies that an out-of-state business must have nexus under both the Due Process Clause and the Commerce Clause. This standard is also consistent with the standards we have in place with regard to our trading partners abroad.

BATSA modernizes Public Law 86-272 by extending the protections under that law to include solicitation activities performed in connection with all sales and transactions, not just tangible personal property. BATSA applies to all business activity taxes, not just net income taxes. This includes gross receipts taxes, gross profits taxes, single business taxes, franchise taxes, capital stock taxes and business and occupation taxes. It does not apply to transaction taxes such as sales and use taxes.

BATSA protects the free flow of information, critical in our modern era of Internet business and protects the activities where the business is a consumer in that State. And, as my colleague, Senator Schumer, rightly pointed out, it is counterintuitive to impose taxes on an out- of-state company purchasing goods or services from an in-State company, since the out-of-state company isn't generating any revenue for the State.

BATSA upholds the approach of disregarding certain de minimus activities codified in Public Law 86-272.

States have argued that BATSA will result in substantial lost State tax revenue. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the projected total loss of revenue to states from BATSA in year one of enactment represents just 0.2 percent of all State and local taxes paid by businesses in 2005. And the CBO cost estimate is actually less than the cost claimed by the National Governor's Association in its own revenue estimates.

I will tell you what BATSA does not do. BATSA does not help large companies avoid paying their fair share of State taxes, stating explicitly that States retain the authority to adopt or continue to use anti-tax avoidance compliance tools. It expressly endorses statutory and regulatory tools at States' disposal to combat tax abuse. Industry and activity-specific safe harbors included in prior bills do not exist in this legislation.

In the glaring absence of Supreme Court clarification on Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, and in the presence of confusing state court interpretations of that decision and ongoing, and legally-creative revenue-raising schemes by States, it's imperative that Congress act now to preserve the free flow of commerce between States. The Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2007 provides that clarification. BATSA ensures that one standard of taxation applies for taxing multi- state companies, so that companies are not unjustly taxed multiple times by different States on the same income. I hope that our colleagues here in the Senate will support this important legislation that will protect the business expansion in our country that keeps our economy competitive and thriving.

Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, for the work he has done on this bill. He shares my grave concerns about the devastating impact that legal interpretations of Public Law 86-272 are having on foreign and interstate commerce. I'm pleased that we can work together in a bipartisan effort to make changes to a law that is in serious need of updating and clarification in view of the more service-oriented economy we have today driven in large part by modern technology's profound transformation of business transactions. This is why we are introducing the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2007, or BATSA, today.

Congress has a Constitutional responsibility to ensure that interstate commerce is not unduly burdened by State actions, including unfair and burdensome taxation of such commerce. Public Law 86-272 was enacted almost 50 years ago, for just these purposes. Ways of conducting multi-state business have changed, and, in the absence of any clarifying legislation, some state courts have interpreted taxation activity under an ``economic presence'' approach. This approach does not reflect the intent or spirit of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution; furthermore, it creates a climate of uncertainty that inhibits business expansion and innovation. Businesses have to take into account the very real possibility that they will be taxed multiple times for the same business activity. These ``business activity taxes'' are certainly appropriate when a business has a physical presence in a State; these taxes are inappropriate when imposed by a State where that business's customer happens to reside, but in which the business has no physical presence.

States' efforts to impose improper business activity taxes have been furthered by the Supreme Court's recent silence on this issue. Recent State court rulings are in conflict with the high Court's ruling in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota in 1992. In that ruling,

the Supreme Court prohibited States from forcing out-of-state corporations to collect sales and use taxes unless such corporation had a physical presence in the taxing State. As my colleague from New York pointed out a few minutes ago, State courts in both New Jersey and West Virginia have held that the physical presence test in Quill only applies to sales and use taxes, not business activity taxes. I share my colleague's deep concern with the fact that the appeals of these two cases to the Supreme Court were denied certiorari just last week. This denial underscores the urgency of BATSA.

This effort by a large number of States to impose business activity taxes based on economic presence has the potential to open a Pandora's Box of negative implications for businesses. Without clarification by Congress, States will be free to enact revenue-raising nexus legislation and policies that, by definition, will not and cannot take into account the national impact of such activities. The eleventh-hour enactment of economic nexus legislation by the New Hampshire State Legislature just days after the Supreme Court denial of certiorari in the New Jersey and West Virginia cases is a sign of things to come. For many businesses, this will serve as a death knell for growth and expansion.

BATSA will help clarify the intent of Public Law 86-272. BATSA codifies the ``physical presence'' standard and will eliminate confusion for State tax administrators and businesses alike. It's consistent with current law and the notion that a tax should not be imposed by a State unless that State provides benefits or protections to the taxpayer. BATSA clarifies that an out-of-state business must have nexus under both the Due Process Clause and the Commerce Clause. This standard is also consistent with the standards we have in place with regard to our trading partners abroad.

BATSA modernizes Public Law 86-272 by extending the protections under that law to include solicitation activities performed in connection with all sales and transactions, not just tangible personal property. BATSA applies to all business activity taxes, not just net income taxes. This includes gross receipts taxes, gross profits taxes, single business taxes, franchise taxes, capital stock taxes and business and occupation taxes. It does not apply to transaction taxes such as sales and use taxes.

BATSA protects the free flow of information, critical in our modern era of Internet business and protects the activities where the business is a consumer in that State. And, as my colleague, Senator Schumer, rightly pointed out, it is counterintuitive to impose taxes on an out- of-state company purchasing goods or services from an in-State company, since the out-of-state company isn't generating any revenue for the State.

BATSA upholds the approach of disregarding certain de minimus activities codified in Public Law 86-272.

States have argued that BATSA will result in substantial lost State tax revenue. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the projected total loss of revenue to states from BATSA in year one of enactment represents just 0.2 percent of all State and local taxes paid by businesses in 2005. And the CBO cost estimate is actually less than the cost claimed by the National Governor's Association in its own revenue estimates.

I will tell you what BATSA does not do. BATSA does not help large companies avoid paying their fair share of State taxes, stating explicitly that States retain the authority to adopt or continue to use anti-tax avoidance compliance tools. It expressly endorses statutory and regulatory tools at States' disposal to combat tax abuse. Industry and activity-specific safe harbors included in prior bills do not exist in this legislation.

In the glaring absence of Supreme Court clarification on Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, and in the presence of confusing state court interpretations of that decision and ongoing, and legally-creative revenue-raising schemes by States, it's imperative that Congress act now to preserve the free flow of commerce between States. The Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2007 provides that clarification. BATSA ensures that one standard of taxation applies for taxing multi- state companies, so that companies are not unjustly taxed multiple times by different States on the same income. I hope that our colleagues here in the Senate will support this important legislation that will protect the business expansion in our country that keeps our economy competitive and thriving.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a very special Idahoan who has undertaken a very important and challenging mission. Many people are moved by a cause; few are inspired to take action and leadership in support of such cause. David Joseph Lynch is one of the few. In 2004, Mr. Lynch was moved by the plight of Israeli schoolchildren--Jewish, Muslim, Druze, Bedouin, Baha'i and Christian-- who do not have ready access to English language books because of limited financial resources and demands on the Israeli government in its ongoing war against terrorism. He read an article about the Jade Bar-Shalom Books for Israel Project and knew immediately that this was his calling. This grandfather of three and great grandfather of four who will be 89 next

month, founded the Idaho flagship of the international Books for Israel project.

Between 2004 and 2006, Mr. Lynch gathered over 10,000 books from Idaho schools to send to Israel for the schoolchildren there. His goal is to have books donated from all the counties in Idaho. Mr. Lynch has enlisted supporters from the community including school officials, bookstore owners, a restaurant franchise, Office Depot, Boise State University, and even members of the criminal justice community in Boise.

I commend Mr. Lynch on his outstanding efforts and thank him also for his esteemed service in the U.S. Navy before and during World War II. Clearly, David Joseph Lynch embodies a life of service and a commitment to improving humanity. He is an inspiration to all--a man whose singular efforts are felt across the globe by our friends in Israel.

Mr. President, I was deeply saddened to hear of the sudden passing of my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Craig Thomas. The loss we all feel at his passing Craig is tempered by the happy memories I have of working with him on so many issues of mutual interest. His efforts and his leadership on the panels on which we served together--the Senate Finance Committee, Senate Agriculture Committee, and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee--will remain foremost in my memory. I particularly admired his staunch advocacy for the needs of rural communities and farmers. Craig brought a special passion and expertise to issues affecting ranching families. His focus on their unique needs spanned the trade, economic, environmental, and public lands management issues of rural communities.

Craig brought to Congress his vision for the needs of Wyoming and rural States, and he became a strong advocate of effective resource and energy policies. I am pleased to have partnered with him in applying technologies to improving our Nation's energy generation. Although he lived his life modestly, he became a leader in national park stewardship, and the American people owe him a debt of gratitude for his promotion of the underserved national parks system. I also appreciated his long and thoughtful counsel on ways to update the Endangered Species Act.

In recent months, Craig took a prime role on the Finance Committee in working to simplify the Federal Tax Code and improve entitlement and health care assistance to the least fortunate. As one who took to heart the importance of protecting the taxpayers' dollars, Craig was a strong proponent of restoring the sustainability of our Nation's welfare system. And Craig understood that economic development in rural States like Wyoming was inextricably linked to trade promotion that ensured open and fair markets abroad. I will miss his stalwart and consistent advocacy for farming communities as the Senate considered trade legislation.

As a man who represented a small State in population, Craig towered large over the landscape of thoughtful conservative Members of Congress. I think a fitting tribute and legacy to our late friend would be to adopt his resolution making July 28, National Day of the Cowboy. My thoughts and prayers are with Craig's family and friends. I will miss my good friend and colleague.

Mr. President, today I recognize the remarkable efforts undertaken over the past few years by two nephrologists who, only recently, have come to call Idaho ``home.'' Dr. Naeem Rahim and his brother Dr. Fahim Rahim, originally from Pakistan, came to Pocatello, Idaho from New York City in 2005. In less than a year, the Rahim brothers established a world-class kidney treatment center, the Idaho Kidney Institute. Their work has meant improved health and saved lives for those suffering from chronic kidney disease, uncontrolled high blood pressure, postkidney transplant care, internal medicine, diabetes-related kidney problems, anemia and dialysis care. Started in Pocatello, the institute has offices in Blackfoot and Idaho Falls. The Rahim brothers have helped people of all ages seeking relief and care for renal diseases, both critical and long-term care.

The Rahim brothers have closed a gap in treatment facilities and services for kidney patients in southeast Idaho and, in particular, understand the need for preventive care. Additionally, they have a reputation for delivering their medical expertise with an astute sense of care and concern for their patients. Their outstanding work was brought to my attention by a family who had sought care for an ill relative, literally, across the Nation, with limited success. Upon learning of the Idaho Kidney Institute, they sought treatment there, and met with overwhelming success. It is good to know that Idahoans have access to such exceptional medical expertise, right at home.

Idaho has many gems; Doctors Fahim and Naeem Rahim are two such gems.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today a bill to address the increasing need for electric power transmission in our country.

The Nation's network of transmission lines is the super-highway of the electric utility industry and the backbone of the electric grid. It serves as the means of moving large amounts of electricity continuously from powerplants to substations where it is distributed to homes and businesses.

A vibrant transmission system helps prevent reliability problems such as blackouts which have wreaked havoc in California, the Northeast, and the Midwest in the last 5 years. It enables regions rich in energy resources like wind, coal, natural gas, and hydropower, to export energy to power-starved regions of the country. It also serves as the engine of our Nation's economic well-being.

It has been widely acknowledged by Government and industry experts that investment in the transmission system has tapered off significantly and more investment is needed. Planning for the Nation's future electricity needs is a key consideration as adding transmission can take many years, even in the most streamlined process. Decisions on system enhancements needed in the next decade must be made today. As with other components of utility infrastructure, siting and building transmission lines is both difficult and very expensive, often costing much more than $1 million per mile.

Over the last two decades, transmission investment has decreased by $115 million a year, dropping from $5 billion annually in 1975 to $2 billion in 2000. The electric transmission line grid capacity has not been upgraded to meet growth demands, particularly in the rapidly growing West. In 2001, the estimated cost for infrastructure renewal was $1.3 trillion over a 5-year period. Today, that cost has risen to over $2 trillion.

Other investment barriers include lack of regional integrated planning and difficulty in siting new transmission lines. The process can involve acquiring land easements from property owners, and creating a cleared corridor, 70 to 100 feet wide and often many miles long. On top of all this is the uncertainty regarding investment risks and returns.

Adding large transmission lines also requires State regulatory approval, which involves significant permitting, research and modeling data, environmental information, cost comparisons, analyses of various options, discussions of scenarios and criteria used in evaluation, and other information.

Lack of new transmission directly affects the price of retail electricity as a decrease in available transmission lines leads to more limited access to electric generation plants. Any addition of powerplants, including nuclear facilities and renewables such as wind, would also require new transmission lines and facilities.

In short our Nation's economy and population are still growing, and so too are its power needs, but without new transmission, access to new power generation is static, which will in turn lead to rising retail and industrial power costs.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included several important provisions to encourage transmission investment. I believe there is more that we can do to accelerate the pace of investment in transmission infrastructure and to lower the cost of those investments.

My State of Idaho and several others have created State infrastructure authorities to finance and promote needed transmission investments. The creation of these State authorities is a new and innovative development that could be the appropriate catalyst for this needed investment. However, the full potential of these State authorities will not be realized under existing law.

As instrumentalities of the State, these authorities can issue tax- exempt bonds to finance transmission projects. But under current law, only a very limited number of industry participants such as other governmental entities, can use these facilities built with tax-exempt bonds. Clearly, we need a system in which new transmission facilities, regardless of the source of financing, are available for use by industry participants.

The legislation I am introducing today amends section 141 of the Internal Revenue Code to modify the so-called private use restrictions on tax-exempt financing of transmission facilities. Under this legislation, any issuer of tax-exempt bonds to finance transmission facilities would continue to be required to own the facilities. However, the operation or use of those facilities by a nongovernmental private party would not jeopardize the tax-exempt status of the bonds. As an example from my State, the Idaho Energy Resources Authority could issue tax-exempt bonds to finance a transmission line and all parties, private utilities, rural electric cooperatives, municipal utilities, independent power producers, could move power across that facility.

Thus, all segments of the industry benefit from new, low-cost investment in transmission. The basic requirement of section 141 that tax-exempt financed facilities serve a general public purpose and are owned by an eligible issuer is retained. And our whole Nation benefits from a transmission system that is more robust, reliable and cost effective.

My legislation sunsets in 5 years. This will provide Congress an opportunity to review the effectiveness and implications of this change in the code.

In addition to support for this proposal from various parties in Idaho, this concept has been endorsed by the Western Governors Association.

It is my hope that this commonsense proposal can be quickly enacted and that lower cost investments in the Nation's transmission grid can be made.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today a bill to address the increasing need for electric power transmission in our country.

The Nation's network of transmission lines is the super-highway of the electric utility industry and the backbone of the electric grid. It serves as the means of moving large amounts of electricity continuously from powerplants to substations where it is distributed to homes and businesses.

A vibrant transmission system helps prevent reliability problems such as blackouts which have wreaked havoc in California, the Northeast, and the Midwest in the last 5 years. It enables regions rich in energy resources like wind, coal, natural gas, and hydropower, to export energy to power-starved regions of the country. It also serves as the engine of our Nation's economic well-being.

It has been widely acknowledged by Government and industry experts that investment in the transmission system has tapered off significantly and more investment is needed. Planning for the Nation's future electricity needs is a key consideration as adding transmission can take many years, even in the most streamlined process. Decisions on system enhancements needed in the next decade must be made today. As with other components of utility infrastructure, siting and building transmission lines is both difficult and very expensive, often costing much more than $1 million per mile.

Over the last two decades, transmission investment has decreased by $115 million a year, dropping from $5 billion annually in 1975 to $2 billion in 2000. The electric transmission line grid capacity has not been upgraded to meet growth demands, particularly in the rapidly growing West. In 2001, the estimated cost for infrastructure renewal was $1.3 trillion over a 5-year period. Today, that cost has risen to over $2 trillion.

Other investment barriers include lack of regional integrated planning and difficulty in siting new transmission lines. The process can involve acquiring land easements from property owners, and creating a cleared corridor, 70 to 100 feet wide and often many miles long. On top of all this is the uncertainty regarding investment risks and returns.

Adding large transmission lines also requires State regulatory approval, which involves significant permitting, research and modeling data, environmental information, cost comparisons, analyses of various options, discussions of scenarios and criteria used in evaluation, and other information.

Lack of new transmission directly affects the price of retail electricity as a decrease in available transmission lines leads to more limited access to electric generation plants. Any addition of powerplants, including nuclear facilities and renewables such as wind, would also require new transmission lines and facilities.

In short our Nation's economy and population are still growing, and so too are its power needs, but without new transmission, access to new power generation is static, which will in turn lead to rising retail and industrial power costs.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included several important provisions to encourage transmission investment. I believe there is more that we can do to accelerate the pace of investment in transmission infrastructure and to lower the cost of those investments.

My State of Idaho and several others have created State infrastructure authorities to finance and promote needed transmission investments. The creation of these State authorities is a new and innovative development that could be the appropriate catalyst for this needed investment. However, the full potential of these State authorities will not be realized under existing law.

As instrumentalities of the State, these authorities can issue tax- exempt bonds to finance transmission projects. But under current law, only a very limited number of industry participants such as other governmental entities, can use these facilities built with tax-exempt bonds. Clearly, we need a system in which new transmission facilities, regardless of the source of financing, are available for use by industry participants.

The legislation I am introducing today amends section 141 of the Internal Revenue Code to modify the so-called private use restrictions on tax-exempt financing of transmission facilities. Under this legislation, any issuer of tax-exempt bonds to finance transmission facilities would continue to be required to own the facilities. However, the operation or use of those facilities by a nongovernmental private party would not jeopardize the tax-exempt status of the bonds. As an example from my State, the Idaho Energy Resources Authority could issue tax-exempt bonds to finance a transmission line and all parties, private utilities, rural electric cooperatives, municipal utilities, independent power producers, could move power across that facility.

Thus, all segments of the industry benefit from new, low-cost investment in transmission. The basic requirement of section 141 that tax-exempt financed facilities serve a general public purpose and are owned by an eligible issuer is retained. And our whole Nation benefits from a transmission system that is more robust, reliable and cost effective.

My legislation sunsets in 5 years. This will provide Congress an opportunity to review the effectiveness and implications of this change in the code.

In addition to support for this proposal from various parties in Idaho, this concept has been endorsed by the Western Governors Association.

It is my hope that this commonsense proposal can be quickly enacted and that lower cost investments in the Nation's transmission grid can be made.

Madam President, I was deeply saddened to hear of the sudden passing of my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Craig Thomas. The loss we all feel at his passing is tempered by the happy memories I have of working with him on so many issues of mutual interest. His efforts and his leadership on the panels on which we served together the Senate Finance Committee, Senate Agriculture Committee, and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee--will remain foremost in my memory. I particularly admired his staunch advocacy for the needs of rural communities and farmers. Craig brought a special passion and expertise to issues affecting ranching families. His focus on their unique needs spanned the trade, economic, environmental, and public lands management issues of rural communities.

Craig brought to Congress his vision for the needs of Wyoming and rural States, and he became a strong advocate of effective resource and energy policies. I am pleased to have partnered with him in applying technologies to improving our Nation's energy generation. Although he lived his life modestly, he became a leader in national park stewardship, and the American people owe him a debt of gratitude for his promotion of the underserved National Park System. I also appreciated his long and thoughtful counsel on ways to update the Endangered Species Act.

In recent months, Craig took a prime role on the Finance Committee in working to simplify the Federal Tax

Code and improve entitlement and health care assistance to the least fortunate. As one who took to heart the importance of protecting the taxpayers' dollars, Craig was a strong proponent of restoring the sustainability of our Nation's welfare system. And Craig understood that economic development in rural States like Wyoming was inextricably linked to trade promotion that ensured open and fair markets abroad. I will miss his stalwart and consistent advocacy for farming communities as the Senate considered trade legislation.

As a man who represented a small State in population, Craig towered large over the landscape of thoughtful conservative Members of Congress. I think a fitting tribute and legacy to our late friend would be to adopt his resolution making July 28 National Day of the Cowboy. My thoughts and prayers are with Craig's family and friends. I will miss my good friend and colleague.

Mr. President, I would like to honor an esteemed colleague with whom I have had the privilege of serving in this body for the past 9 years.

As many others have already observed, Senator Stevens is an institution in Alaska, the Senate, and in the United States. Our President pro tempore, already the longest serving Republican in the Senate, served our Nation heroically in World War II and worked previously in the Justice and Interior Departments. In the latter position, Senator Stevens was an instrumental part of bringing statehood to Alaska--the State of Alaska literally is partly his creation.

Senator Stevens and I share concerns about issues important to America but particular to the Pacific Northwest. Our States, with vast Federal land holdings, play a key role in energy resource exploration and development crucial to building viable and plentiful domestic energy supplies. We share views on ensuring local and State governments and communities have primacy in handling matters of direct impact on them. Both Idaho and Alaska are home to thriving indigenous populations, and we both work to ensure that they have their voices heard in Congress.

Idaho and Alaska have other similar Pacific Northwest resource and environmental issues. Senator Stevens shares my care for and attention to these issues. He is an advocate for work to restore salmon fisheries and rural community development. I have had the pleasure to work with him on promoting the Pacific Northwest Salmon Recovery Fund and drinking water infrastructure needs for rural Alaska. He is a tireless defender of the interests of Alaskans and one of the greatest tourism promotion resources for the State.

I have always appreciated Senator Stevens' strong voice and steady leadership in the Senate. He has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to our military and against terrorism. He understands the enemies we face here and abroad and has spent many decades standing strong for his convictions, relentlessly pursuing funding for a strong military to defend our country and our heritage of liberty and freedom.

I admire Senator Stevens' strong history of bipartisanship highlighted by his long friendship with the senior Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye. Their working and interpersonal relationship stands as a testament to what can be accomplished when we set party bickering aside and focus on our jobs to which we were elected--helping America remain the envy of the world.

We share an alma mater, and I am pleased to call him a colleague in the Senate. I am proud to honor the Senior Senator from Alaska, in his 39th year of public service as a Senator. Congratulations, and thank you for your service.

Mr. President, I would like to recognize the dedicated efforts of the students at Orofino High School who came to Washington to represent Idaho in the finals of the annual We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution Program.

The national finals include a hearing which gives the students the opportunity to apply their specialized learning in history, social studies, government, and civics during ``testimony'' before a panel of judges. As they use their newly gained knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to examine, counter, and defend issues facing America today, students come to appreciate the timeless nature of this great document. This experience gives young people the opportunity to apply civic values to real-life challenges and serves them in whatever they choose to do after they graduate from high school.

Orofino High School was excellently represented by Jennifer Cluck, Justin Haag, Gary Hardin, George Korbel, Nathan LeBaron, Ryan Lundgren, Madison Morrow, Eric Petersen, Jessica Robbeloth, Ashley Roshitsh, Capri Savage, Kelsey Stemrich, and Bret Zender.

Cindy Wilson, the teacher who prepared these exceptional students, deserves recognition for her tremendous efforts. Also worthy of special recognition is Peter Kavouras, the State coordinator, who is among those responsible for implementing the We the People Program in my State.

Idahoans can be proud of the growth of civic virtue in their young people. As they look beyond themselves to the realm of the public good, Idaho and America will benefit as these individuals develop into responsible, intelligent citizens who practice discernment in judgment in matters of concern to our State and Nation. In the future, these student citizens will be more inclined to exhibit leadership faithful to the ideals upon which our country was built and consonant with the notions of liberty, freedom, justice, and rule of law.

Madam President, Friday, May 11, 2007, was National Military Spouses Day. Oftentimes, those who are, as the saying goes, ``married to the military'' are not recognized for the support they provide and sacrifice they endure during the time of their spouses' active duty service. Certainly when a member is deployed, but throughout a military member's career, the strength and support of a wife or husband can make the difference between success or failure for that individual and that family. Military spouses endure the hardship of separation from loved ones, frequently take on the role of a single parent, and move more often than most civilians throughout the course of a military career. They receive no commendation medals and few accolades, save the gratitude of an exhausted spouse who comes home to a warm embrace and nurturing bond after a long deployment or simply another late night at work. Military spouses are truly war's unsung heroes. In addition to a job they may have outside the home, they are teacher, chief consoler, housekeeper, accountant, taxi driver, cook, referee and nurse. They encounter their own battles bravely, with efficiency, expertise and stubborn persistence supporting our Nation in their daily challenges every bit as valiantly as our military members do.

I commend the over 1,000 military spouses in or from Idaho and U.S. military spouses worldwide and thank them for their service to our Nation, sacrifice and patriotism. Our country, but most importantly their families, need their strength. We all depend on it.