Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I wonder if I could amend that to 15 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. Given the gravity of this legislation, that time was a little short.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, a cloud hangs over the American economy. It is a cloud made up of thousands of failures, and it is casting a shadow over our country. This cloud of failure is so vast that we have a hard time seeing where it starts and where it ends. This cloud is so thick, we cannot see all the dangers it hides. We cannot tell even if there is light right on the other side. And this cloud is moving fast. It is speedier and stormier than most of us have seen in our lifetimes. This cloud over the American economy contains the failures of people whom we trusted to make this country prosper. It holds the failures of many national institutions, their failure to be prudent, to be honest. This cloud is made up of the failures of the private and public institutions that are supposed to safeguard our financial security. Instead, they let it slip away. Americans are frustrated by the negligence that let this cloud of economic crisis take shape. This week, many Americans were angry that the Government seemed at first to want to shelter Wall Street from the rain but not America's working families. I share Americans' concerns. I share Americans' frustrations. I share their anger. I am pleased today because the Senate has heard America's voice. The bill the Senate will consider today improves the Treasury Department's original plan. We made it better. We made this bill work better for working families who are already weathering financial storms and who now face more rainy days because of Wall Street's greed. The collapse of the financial markets does not sound like Main Street's problem. Most Americans are too busy making ends meet to figure out how frozen credit markets and a shortage of commercial paper affect their lives. To most Americans, banks not lending to other banks sounds like a bank problem, not their problem. But these haywire markets are everyone's problem, and here is why. If a bank cannot get credit, neither can its customers. Its customers are the local hardware store, the car dealership down the street. Its customers are college-bound young people and the new neighbor who just bought the house next door. These good people rely on their bank to pay their invoices and make payroll on time. The funds they depend on are also now beginning to dry up. For example, a Montana businessman called me this week. His company has an $11 million outstanding loan, a 3-year loan. He uses it to keep his business stocked with inventory. The bank has called that loan in. That 3-year loan is now being called in. He must pay it off, according to the bank, in the next 90 days--not 3 years, 90 days. The crisis is coming home for him now, that is for sure, and that threatens other good people. If the hardware store and the car dealership lose business, pretty soon employees and suppliers get hurt. If a neighbor cannot get a mortgage, painters, movers, and handymen will have one less paying job. The young person who cannot afford college without a loan and the lady hoping to rent out her basement apartment or the guy who sells school books might come up a bit short. This financial crisis is closer to home than we realize. It affects Americans who earn an honest living, follow the rules, and work hard. Honest Americans about to get hit harder by the financial storm are the reason I worked to improve this plan. Working families are the reason I insisted on tax relief for struggling homeowners who can't pay the mortgage and can't afford a tax hit when their indebtedness is forgiven. Working families are the reason I insisted on help for hometown banks in Montana and elsewhere that suffered when stock prices fell because of Wall Street's greed--not their fault at all, not the bankers, the Main Street bankers in our States. Working families are the reason we all insisted on finding a way to get back much of the money spent on this plan. The Treasury will buy assets with the money it spends. Later, the Treasury can sell those assets or hold them to maturity. In either case, there is a good chance the Treasury will get back some or all of these dollars. When I say the Treasury, those are taxpayers' dollars. This bill, therefore, gives American taxpayers a stake in the companies they are helping and a share in their future profits. The American taxpayer's pocket should be the last place companies look for a bailout, but when these companies do ask for help, the American taxpayer should be the first to benefit when the firms get back on their feet. This bill makes sure of that. Americans taxpayers are the reason I insisted on cutting paychecks and closing golden parachutes of Wall Street executives. In just the past 5 years, the five biggest Wall Street firms paid more than $3 billion to their top executives--5 years, five biggest firms, $3 billion to their top executives. That is not right. It is not right for executives to get more big paychecks while their companies are getting assistance from the Government. If companies ask for taxpayer help on the one hand, they can't give out big executive bonuses with the other. This bill limits compensation to executives with golden parachutes. The Treasury will have to issue guidelines on cutting executive compensation. The Treasury Secretary will have to say: You can't play if you are going to overpay. These provisions are helpful, but we have a lot more in this legislation, even more guidance given to the Treasury Secretary on executive compensation. I also developed some provisions to cut tax breaks companies get for executive pay and to make sure executives pay tax on more of their income than they do today. I don't want Main Street to subsidize severance pay on Wall Street. For taxpayers' sake, I also wrote a provision creating a special watchdog to track and protect taxpayer dollars. I said that American resources must be used wisely and efficiently. This bill includes my proposal to create an independent inspector general to oversee this effort, this effort and nothing else, solely designed for this problem. I designed the office of this inspector general to be truly independent, with the necessary resources to fight for every taxpayer dollar. I designed this inspector general to be accountable only to Congress and to the American taxpayer. It will be my personal mission to make sure this watchdog does his or her job. I want this inspector general on the ground in New York inside the firms that facilitate Treasury auctions, watching every dollar that comes and goes. This investigator will hear from the Finance Committee as we work to protect the American people's interests in this effort. Finally, America's working families are the reason I am so glad this bill now includes tax relief. Last night, Senators Reid and McConnell announced that this bill would include Senate-passed legislation--that is, earlier passed--that will create and extend tax incentives for renewable energy to protect 20 million Americans from paying what is called the alternative minimum tax and also extend a number of vital expiring tax credits for businesses and families. This is the right call. Adding this tax relief will ensure that regular working Americans get financial help in this time of crisis. As soon as this legislation passes, good-paying jobs will open in green energy, as wind and solar projects get up and running. Twenty million Americans who can't afford a higher tax bill are protected from the alternative minimum tax. Families will get a break on college tuition, classroom expenses, and State and local sales taxes, and companies will get tax relief to do research and development, to grow, to offer even more good-paying jobs. Adding tax relief that creates jobs, supports families, and secures a new energy future for the country makes this bill a lot fairer for hard-working Americans. A ``yes'' vote on the financial rescue plan is now a vote to rescue America's working families from this financial crisis with the right tax relief at just the right time. It is now time to act. As a Senator, I was disturbed by this administration's attempt to rush through a bill for business. But as an American, I am disgusted also by the negligence and greed that got us into this mess. But at this time of crisis, we must not let our anger paralyze us. So many have failed to act responsibly. We must do better. We here in the Senate cannot fail. Failure to act would make today's economic cloud even bigger and more dangerous. Failure to act could unleash the lightning bolts of recession and the downpour of unemployment. Failure to act could turn this cloud into a storm that tears through our entire economy. The plan in front of us is not perfect. I wish we did a lot more here. I wish we did not have to be where we are. I know many Americans do not want it. But this is the best way to quickly disperse this economic cloud and guard against a bigger storm. Like it or not, we must have a plan big enough to counter our economic woes in a systematic, comprehensive way. I will vote for this legislation because America is under a cloud, and we cannot linger here. Congress must make sure this crisis does not get worse. With the addition of significant tax relief to this legislation, Congress can actually lift the cloud a bit. Tax relief will make things a little better for Americans feeling financial hurt. With this vote, Congress must also promise the American people that this will never happen again. The lesson of the cloud must lead us to build a strong financial framework that will not falter again. The lesson of the cloud must lead us to seek a brighter future for every American family that helps us to weather this storm. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Yes, it is. I understand your concern that the language in the bill we adopted on September 23 could still leave some taxpayers in an ambiguous position with respect to additional units of power added to biomass facilities qualifying for the credit. Let me assure you that my staff and I will continue to work with you to address this matter. Ms. SNOWE: I want to thank the chairman of the Finance Committee as well as Senator Bill Nelson for their work on addressing the incremental biomass production ambiguity. Clearly, at a time when our Nation's manufacturing industry is besieged by historic energy costs, we must provide the incentives for expanded biomass production. The production tax credit was intended to be provided for companies that expand their production in and beyond 2005, and I believe we must have concise and clear language that these facilities should receive the credit for producing renewable energy in their operations. I look forward to working with Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Grassley, and Senator Nelson to reconcile this inadvertent confusion. basis reporting

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the energy policy in the pending legislation is partially paid for by a proposal that requires brokers to report to their clients and to the IRS the basis of securities that are sold during the year. This provision expands existing information reporting requirements that require brokers to report the sales proceeds of securities that are sold. The IRS estimates that in 2001 the tax gap associated with all capital gains was about $11 billion. Providing this information will reduce burden on axpayers and increase the accuracy of tax returns that are filed.

Mr. BAUCUS. Congress intends that the Treasury Department issue guidance and regulations that will help brokers implement this reporting requirement, including the issue of year-end reclassifications. The existing regulatory authority under Internal Revenue Code section 6045 fully applies to the new basis reporting rules proposed in this legislation.

Mr. BAUCUS. To my good friend from Indiana, the answer is yes. The new tax credit for plug-in electric drive motor vehicles was intended to be, within weight and emission limits, vehicle design neutral. Vans are clearly a subset of light trucks and would be eligible if they meet the weight, energy, and emission criteria under the provision. administrative procedures act review

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works is correct. The legislation is intended to leave the substantive environmental criteria and requirements for carbon sequestration to EPA, including security- related issues, and as was done with respect to carbon sequestration in section 706 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, this provision is not intended to limit the legal requirements and authorities of EPA. EPA's criteria and requirements for carbon sequestration will be applied by the Secretary of the Treasury after consultation. foreclosure prevention provisions

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the attached technical explanation of the tax provisions of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Tester, to recognize MG Randall D. Mosley, Adjutant General for the great state of Montana. MG Randall D. Mosley has served our Nation and the State of Montana for over 38 years and has recently retired. The Montana Guard was established in 1889. Since then, few adjutant generals have faced as many challenges as Major General Mosley. We Montanans were so lucky to have such a great citizen soldier at the helm of our National Guard. I want to take a few moments to recount the career of this great Montanan. General Mosley's career is a model of public service and serves an example for all those in the military. He never backed down to any challenging issue, of which he had many. During his tenure, duty called several thousand Montana National Guard members to Iraq and Afghanistan. The deployments put great strains on the soldiers and airmen that answered the call, as well as the families of the soldiers that stayed at home. General Mosley worked tirelessly before, during, and after each deployment to support his troops and their families. General Mosley understood that troops returning home from overseas need the support of the whole community. General Mosley worked to improve community awareness of the challenges troops face upon returning from combat. As it became clear that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were creating new forms of injuries, he led an overhaul of Montana's postdeployment health reassessment program. General Mosley put together a task force with community leaders from around the state. The task force developed better ways to care for his troops as they returned home. Thanks to General Mosley's leadership, the Montana National Guard has one of the best yellow-ribbon programs in the country. It is a model for the rest of the nation to follow. Improved mental health care is now available to Montana's guardsmen and their families. The Guard offers training workshops to help troops transition back to everyday life. Montanans are truly grateful to General Mosley for his leadership on this critical issue. I now yield to my colleague from Montana, Senator Tester.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have a favorite quote about firefighters: ``All men are created equal, then a few become firemen.'' Firefighters are indeed a rare breed--selfless and brave. It is a tragedy when even one is lost. On September 1, Montana and America lost not one but three firefighters in an airplane crash as they rushed to quell the flames of a fire in California. Gene Wahlstrom, Greg Gonsioroski, and Zachary VanderGriend may be gone from this Earth, but they will never be forgotten. Their sacrifice and unwavering dedication to the lives of others stand as an example for all Americans. These brave men were based in Missoula, MT, and though they hailed from Washington and Utah in addition to the Big Sky State, I am proud to call them all Montanans. Gene Wahlstrom began his 35-year flying career as a crop duster and rose to the position of chief pilot for Neptune Aviation. Gene was a Vietnam veteran and a natural leader and mentor. Folks who knew Gene say he was a kind, genuine, accomplished, and loyal friend. Most folks who knew Greg Gonsioroski just called him ``Gonzo.'' He began his career as an airplane mechanic but decided to take to the skies himself. Greg was a native of Baker, MT. A family man first, father to Gabriel, Grady, and Gracelyn, and doting husband to Kim, he will be remembered as a gentle giant and a loving and patient father, husband, and friend. Zachary VanderGriend was a new employee with Neptune Aviation but not new to flying--he had dreamed of being a pilot since he was 2 years old. Zachary got his pilot's license when he was 17 and spent much of his time in volunteer programs such as the Young Eagles. As noted in his eulogy, Zachary was a devoted Christian who loved to fly ``because it was there he felt closest to God.'' I believe service is one of the most honorable things a person can do. Whether it is service to ones community, State, or country, service is the most noble of all human endeavors. In Montana and indeed across much of the West, fires are an almost constant threat. It is the price we pay for living in one of the most beautiful places on earth. So every year we place our belongings, our homes and our lives in the hands of firefighters--too often without a second thought. The loss of Gene, Greg, and Zachary gives us pause. As a Montanan and an American, I feel tremendous sadness in their passing but also tremendous gratitude for the time we were graced with their presence.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, first, I regret the Senate is unable to take up and pass this legislation. We all know how important it is. The problem here now is that the Senate has demonstrated the limit of what it can do and what it cannot do. The Senate has now demonstrated it cannot pass the tax extender bills. This cannot be done. I want to follow on what the leader said. This is not a matter of embarrassing anybody. Sometimes our good friends in the other body think we are trying to embarrass them. This is not a matter of trying to embarrass anybody. It is a matter of trying to get some good public policy passed here for our country in these closing days of the Congress. We are talking about energy incentives to help make us more independent from OPEC; mental health, trying to get a mental health parity bill finally passed, which clearly is important for obvious reasons. Then the awful words are ``tax extenders.'' It helps America be competitive--the research and development tax credit to help kids get to school. This is very simple stuff. It is very basic stuff. I think some of our colleagues and friends on the other side think we are trying to stuff them, trying to embarrass them, it is partisan. This is not a matter of embarrassing anybody. This is not a partisan matter. This is an American matter--do something for America. If we go back too far in the weeds, some of our colleagues will say: Gee, we have this $700 billion fiscal relief bill and doesn't that add too much to the deficit. I don't know if it will. It is not like passing a $700 billion appropriations bill. This is an authorization. It is similar to the so- called Chrysler bailout, the so-called New York bailout, where taxpayers made money on the deal. If I were a Blue Dog, I wouldn't get too worried about the big pricetag. The main point is we need to get this passed now. It is very modest. Next year is another year and we can deal with all kinds of issues we all want to deal with, but for the good of the country I very much say to my colleagues across in the other body on the other side: Please don't miss this opportunity. Please do what is right. Let's pass this bill before you leave town because not to do so would not be a responsible thing to do. It must be passed over there. It is a Senate bill we are sending over. That is the only responsible way out of this difficult situation we are in. Nothing is perfect. Nobody gets everything. But we have demonstrated now that the House-passed bills here cannot pass. That has been demonstrated by the objection we just heard. It cannot pass. The only solution then is to take up the bills which were worked in a compromise with the Republican Members here and Blue Dogs over there; insofar as the extender, 2 years, only 1 year paid for. That is the compromise and it seems to me that is pretty fair compromise. It seems to me the House should take it up--I hope they do--and do the right thing.

Mr. BAUCUS. As the leader said, we did end up paying for the children's health insurance.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the noted economist John Kenneth Galbraith once wrote: There are two kinds of economists in the world: Those who don't know the future, and those who don't know that they don't know the future. In that sense, we are all economists now. We are all uncertain about our economic future. What we do know is that the stakes for our economic future are high, and we do know the economy is doing poorly right now. During the last 8 months, more than 600,000 people lost their jobs. Housing prices have been falling. Last month, the median home sales price fell 9\1/2\ percent. That is the largest decline since recordkeeping began in 1999. The experts say we have not yet hit bottom. Last month, there were more than 300,000 foreclosures. That is a 12- percent increase from the previous month and a 27-percent increase from the year before. Consumer confidence is low. Last December, the Conference Board's Index for consumer confidence was above 90. Now it is below 57. Last month, retail sales fell by three-tenths of a percent. In this downturn, Congress acted relatively early. In February, on a bipartisan basis, we passed an economic recovery bill and included in that bill was a tax rebate that put money in people's pockets. Lots of people spent that money, and the second quarter gross domestic product was larger than it otherwise would have been. But almost all those checks have now been sent and spent, and the economy is still in bad shape. We need another economic recovery package, and that is what this bill would provide. This bill includes help for workers who have lost their jobs. It includes a further expansion in the number of weeks for unemployment benefits and much more. In June, Congress passed an extension of the number of weeks of unemployment benefits. That extension provided that those who had exhausted their regular 26 weeks of benefits would become eligible for an additional 13 weeks of benefits. We tried to add in a provision for another 13 weeks for those in high-unemployment States, but some of our colleagues and the President opposed that provision so it was dropped in conference. In August, unemployment hit 6.1 percent. That is the highest level in 5 years. Well, here we are in September and the economy is still struggling. In fact, it is in worse shape. It is not easy to find a job that pays well. In October, for example, it is anticipated that 775,000 workers will exhaust the 13 weeks of additional benefits we provided in June. Another 363,000 workers will exhaust these benefits in November or December. That is a total of more than a million workers. This bill provides for an extra 7 weeks of benefits in all States, and then it would make right what we could not do earlier this year, which is provide an additional 13 weeks of benefits for individuals who live in States where unemployment is higher than 6 percent. At the moment, that is 18 States. The bill will also help areas that have been hit by Federal disasters. Under this bill, there would not be a waiting-week penalty when State-extended unemployment benefits kick in during times of disaster. This bill will provide much needed help for overburdened State unemployment systems. We are a society that cares about all its people. In hard economic times, giving additional weeks of unemployment benefits to people who cannot find a job is clearly the right action to take. But there is another reason providing extra weeks of unemployment benefits will help stimulate the economy. People who are unemployed lose the income from their jobs. They generally don't have the income they need. So if they receive more money, they are likely to spend it; hence, unemployment benefits. When these unemployed workers spend their money, the folks who create the goods and services they buy will need more workers. Those workers will spend the earnings they get. The cycle goes on. Economists call this the multiplier effect. The chief economist and cofounder of Moody's is Mark Zandi. He estimates that for every dollar of new unemployment benefits, the economy will grow by $1.64. Compared to other options to stimulate the economy, this option has a high bang for the buck. At times such as these, we need to extend the number of weeks of unemployment benefits. To help strengthen our economy, we also need to provide fiscal relief to State governments. The economy of a State has a major effect on the state government's budget. When a State's economy weakens, the State government's revenues generally fall off. In addition, as unemployment increases and incomes decline, more people become eligible for assistance programs like Medicaid. And that increases the demand for State spending. Almost all of the States have balanced budget requirements. During a time of economic weakness, when revenues drop and the need for expenditures increases, States may have to raise taxes or cut other spending in order to keep their budgets balanced. Unfortunately, that's precisely the wrong fiscal policy. If a State raises taxes, it reduces the purchasing power of its residents and firms. And that can lead to further economic decline. Reductions in State spending also lower the purchasing power of those persons or firms that would receive the State funds. Unfortunately, the current economic weakness is pressing many States to either raise taxes or cut spending. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 30 States had to take actions to reduce their budget deficits for fiscal year 2009, which began on July 1 of this year. And of these 30 States, 13 are facing additional budgetary shortfalls that appeared after they enacted their budgets. These 30 States are facing about $52 billion of shortfalls. If States raise taxes or cut spending by that much, it would place a significant drag on the national economy. During the last economic downturn, Congress increased the Federal matching rate for the Medicaid program by about 3 percentage points for five quarters. This freed up $10 billion for the States so that they did not have to cut Medicaid benefits. And that helped States to avoid cutting other expenditures or raising taxes. Most economists thought that this fiscal assistance measure for the States worked well. In February, the Finance Committee reported out an economic recovery bill that included State fiscal assistance in the form of an increase in the Medicaid matching rate. Unfortunately, that provision was not agreed to on the Senate floor. But the fiscal situation of the States is now worse than it was at the beginning of the year. And so, we should try to help the States. So this bill includes State fiscal relief in the form of an increase in the Medicaid matching rate. This bill contains an across-the-board temporary increase of 4 percentage points in the Federal Medicaid matching rate. That would provide every State with much needed help. At a time of unprecedented fiscal crisis, I think that every State deserves this level of help. These are historic economic times. We are all uncertain about the economic future. The stakes are high. Let us not be found wanting. Let us act to bolster the economy's recovery. And let us vote to advance this bill. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kelcy Paulson and Alicia Marie Johnson be granted the privilege of the floor for today's debate.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, yesterday we passed the Health Care Safety Net Act, which reauthorizes multiple programs within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, HELP. This bill does include one section that changes the timeframe for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, to certify rural health clinic, RHC, shortage area designations from 3 years to 4 years. We have worked closely with the chairman and ranking member of the HELP Committee to have language included in H.R. 3343 to align the timeframe for CMS certifications of rural health clinic designations with the timeframe for HRSA designations. This provision is crucial to maintaining access to primary care and other necessary medical services in rural areas. I know that several rural health clinics in Montana would be forced to close their doors if the CMS rule were permitted to go forth. I am proud to stand with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that these important parts of our health care delivery system are protected. We are most appreciative of the efforts of the HELP Committee to include this language at our request. As chairman of the Finance Committee, I am obligated to point out for the record that Medicare is exclusively governed by title XVIII of the Social Security Act, which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. Inclusion of these Medicare provisions in H.R. 3343 does not represent any waiver of the Finance Committee's jurisdiction on this subject. In the absence of the Chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Kennedy, I would ask the distinguished ranking member, Senator Enzi, to acknowledge that Medicare is governed by title XVIII of the Social Security Act and is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. Again, I would like to extend our thanks to the chairman and ranking member of the HELP Committee for graciously agreeing to our request to include this language in H.R. 3343.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, this amendment would extend and improve tax incentives for clean, renewable energy. It is a good energy amendment and energy policy for America. Here is the bottom line: This amendment would create thousands of new American jobs--jobs that would pay good wages. This amendment would begin the end of America's dependence on foreign oil. And this amendment gives us a chance to show America, before we go home in October, that Congress can actually work for them. This amendment would extend and improve tax credits for wind and solar power. It would extend and improve tax incentives for building and appliance efficiency. And it would extend and improve incentives for clean coal and biofuels. And this amendment would create new incentives for clean energy. It includes a credit of up to $7,500 to help consumers purchase plug-in hybrid cars. It includes a breakthrough credit for the capture and storage of carbon dioxide. And it includes a new tax incentive for what people are calling ``smart meters.'' Smart meters provide real-time information on electricity use. And thus smart meters have proven to reduce electricity use. This amendment would allow my home State of Montana to further develop its vast energy resources, from wind power to biofuels, from clean coal to solar power. I have been trying to pass a version of this amendment for most of the last couple years. And I am very pleased that passage may well be at hand. Mr. President, the last bill that extended energy tax provisions was the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. The ink was hardly dry on that law before I set out to extend and modify the energy incentives that it included. The Finance Committee undertook a series of hearings on energy-tax policy at the beginning of last year. Our hearing topics ranged from renewable electricity to biofuels, from electric vehicles to carbon sequestration, from energy efficiency to clean coal technology. We heard from a wide range of experts on the need for reliable, long-term tax incentives for clean energy, and how best to invest in these incentives. We used this input to develop a far-ranging clean-energy bill. It would have invested roughly $30 billion over 10 years. Our bill included long-term extensions for the wind and solar tax credits. It included long-term extensions and modifications of incentives for improved building efficiency. It included new incentives, such as favorable tax treatment for transmission lines, so we can get renewable power to the market. And it included a credit for cellulosic biofuels, which I am proud to have helped pass a couple months ago in the farm bill. In keeping with the philosophy of paying-as-you-go, the Finance Committee offset the cost of that package. The offsets largely scaled back or repealed tax breaks for the long-established oil and gas industry. We scaled back tax incentives for oil and gas companies in order to increase tax support for clean energy. Our rationale was twofold. First, we argued that as America moves to address global warming, we should begin to provide Federal support for energy that is less carbon- intensive, not more. Second, we argued that with oil and gas prices on the rise, the oil and gas industry did not need tax incentives that it may have needed in the past. Indeed, in 2005, President Bush said, ``I will tell you with $55 oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore.'' When the Finance Committee reported our bill on June 19, 2007, oil traded at more than $69 a barrel. We needed 60 votes to pass the bill. And the oil and gas industry lobbied hard to prevent us from reaching that threshold. We had a strong Senate majority for the Finance Committee product. But we fell 3 votes shy of the 60 needed to break a filibuster. So we went back to the drawing board. We listened to the concerns from the other side that the oil and gas tax offsets were too big. We scaled back our bill. We worked with the House Ways and Means Committee to produce a package with a roughly $20 billion pricetag--about a third smaller than our committee-reported bill. And the argument for our offsets grew stronger. When the Finance Committee reported its bill, a barrel of oil sold for $69. Four weeks later, oil crossed the $75 threshold. In October of last year, oil topped $85 a barrel. And a month after that, oil reached $95 a barrel. In December of last year, we presented our revised $20 billion energy package to the Senate. When the Senate voted on that package, oil traded at $92 per barrel. Our argument swayed a couple of votes, but not enough to break 60. Despite dramatically scaled-back oil and gas tax offsets, our bill fell short by just one vote: 59 votes to 40. So I went back to the drawing board another time. I wrote an energy tax package without oil and gas offsets. I introduced legislation to pay for an energy-tax package by closing tax loopholes and by delaying a tax benefit for multinational corporations. These items also offset the cost of expiring nonenergy tax provisions, such as the tuition deduction and the research and development credit. I have tried to move this package for the last several months. While I dropped the oil and gas tax offsets, some still objected. We made several attempts to pass this vital legislation, with non-oil and gas tax offsets. But it did not clear the Senate. But now energy prices are sky-high. And many more Senators have come to agree that it makes sense to scale back oil and gas tax breaks. So Senator Grassley and I worked together to rewrite our energy tax package one more time. The package before us today is a bit more modest than it used to be. But it is still a valuable set of incentives. It would foster clean-energy jobs, here in America. It would help us to address energy independence. And it would help us to address global warming. Our amendment would extend the section 45 production tax credit, for wind and biomass and geothermal. It would provide an 8-year extension of the credit for solar projects. And it would remove the $2,000 cap on the residential solar credit, giving consumers a strong incentive to power their homes with solar power. The amendment would extend the biodiesel credit, as well as the incentive for property used to refuel alternative vehicles. As before, today's amendment also has several new incentives. It includes the new plug-in hybrid credit--an incentive of up to $7,500 for consumers to purchase clean-running, next-generation vehicles. The amendment includes new incentives for conservation as well--in the form of those ``smart meters'' and investments in recycling property. This energy package would help move us in the right direction toward cleaner, home-grown energy. The amendment is offset by a series of tax provisions, both energy- and nonenergy-related. For example, the amendment addresses the section 199 manufacturing deduction for oil and gas activity. Congress passed this deduction in 2004, when oil traded at about $50 a barrel. It is set to increase to 9 percent in 2010. Our amendment would freeze that deduction at 6 percent for oil and gas activity. Another offset closes a loophole related to oil companies' foreign income. This provision passed the Finance Committee last year. And it would streamline and simplify reporting of income earned on overseas oil and gas activity. Another offset is basis reporting. This provision would improve tax compliance. It would require brokers to tell their clients and the IRS the cost basis of securities sold during the year. This provision would help taxpayers to file more accurate tax returns. And it would help the IRS to more efficiently identify tax returns that are not correctly filed. In essence, it will help us close the tax gap. As you know, about $340 billion a year worth of revenue legally owed to Uncle Sam is not being collected today. This tax reporting provision will help put a dent in that tax gap. This amendment does not include everything that I would like. On the clean energy incentives side, I would have liked to extend the renewable production credit for a longer period. I would have liked to provide incentives for improving our electricity grid. I would have liked a more robust set of measures to address the use of clean coal. No matter how much some people dislike coal, the fact is that we get half of our electricity from coal. We need to burn it cleanly. As for offsets, while oil has retreated from an all-time high of nearly $150 per barrel, the price of crude closed at $121 a barrel yesterday. That is still a very strong incentive to explore and produce. Whether the price of oil is $121 or $150--or even, as President Bush said, $55--it's hard to argue that oil and gas activity needs a boost from the American taxpayer. We will continue this debate in the next Congress. This amendment does not do everything. But it would prevent vital energy tax extensions from expiring. And it would add new clean-energy incentives. We cannot start addressing global warming without a recognition that--at least for now--clean and alternative energy generally cannot compete with the fossil-based variety without at least a little help from incentives like these. And so I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I urge their support to create thousands of jobs in the clean tech industry. I urge their support to help address global warming. I urge their support to help foster greater energy independence. Let's adopt this amendment. Let's show America that Congress can work for them. And let's finish what we have to do before the end of the session.

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes from the time in opposition to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be temporarily set aside and I be allowed to call up my amendment No. 5635.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes of the time in favor of the third amendment to the senior Senator from New Mexico, a lead sponsor of the mental health parity provisions in the amendment.

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

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be concluded.