Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I wish to clarify the remaining time.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Dangerous Dust: Is OSHA Doing Enough to Protect Workers?'' on Tuesday, July 29, 2008. The hearing will commence at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Music and Radio in the 21st Century: Assuring Fair Rates and Rules Across Platforms'' on Tuesday, July 29, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 29, 2008, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 29, 2008, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 29, 2008, at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 29,2008, at 10:30 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 29, 2008 at 10 a.m., to conduct a committee hearing entitled ``State of the Insurance Industry: Examining the Current Regulatory and Oversight Structure.''

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday July 29, 2008, at 5:30 p.m..

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, Committee on Environment and Public Works, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing entitled, ``EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR): Recent Court Decision and Its Implications.''

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 29, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Payroll Tax Abuse: Businesses Owe Billions and What Needs To Be Done About It.''

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for the next 15 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in the book, ``The Ethics of the Fathers,'' the sage Rabbi Tarfon taught: It is not up to us to finish the work, but neither are we free to avoid it. Later this week, the Senate will vote on the Jobs, Energy, Families and Disaster Relief Act of 2008. This bill may not finish all the work that we need to do. But this bill does do work that we are not free to avoid. I urge my colleagues to vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed. This legislation is important to our economy, to our energy security, and to the wellbeing of America's working families. And it is also vital to helping people harmed by natural disasters to get back on their feet. Some call this an ``extenders'' package. It extends tax incentives that are important to American businesses and families. It includes the deduction for college tuition and the R&D credit. It includes the deduction for State and local income taxes. And it includes the new markets tax credit which helps spur investment in low- income communities. But S. 3335 is more than just an extenders bill. It also contains vital new provisions. It includes tax credits for plug-in vehicles. It includes a long-term extension of tax credits for solar power. And it includes a badly needed fix to the highway trust fund, which finances a large portion of our Nation's transportation infrastructure. That has to be extended; otherwise, a lot of jobs will go wanting. A lot of construction jobs will not be there, unless we maintain and continue financing for the highway program. I urge my colleagues to take up this bill and pass it. The vote this week will not be the first time this year that the Senate has sought to extend this important tax legislation. In May, the House passed H.R. 6049, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008. That bill included a roughly $17 billion energy tax package. And it included $37 billion in other tax extenders. The bill was offset with responsible tax policies that would have changed the timing of tax on offshore hedge fund managers and multinational corporations. The majority leader tried to take up that bill in June. In fact, he tried twice. But some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would not allow us to proceed to the bill. The first attempt to proceed failed, 50 to 44, on June 10. The second attempt failed a week later, with a vote of 52 to 44. Some argued that the House bill lacked key items. For example, some said that it should have included relief from the alternative minimum tax. And some objected to provisions that were in the bill. For example, some said that it should not have included Davis-Bacon protections on prevailing wages. In response to those and other concerns, I introduced S. 3125, a revised version of the bill that passed the House. S. 3125 included a one-year patch for the alternative minimum tax. It would prevent more than 20 million families from paying a tax that Congress never intended them to pay. And in an effort to reach bipartisan compromise, that bill omitted the Davis-Bacon provision. But my friends on the other side still objected to that package. They expressed concern over other items, such as a provision that allows attorney contingency fees to be deducted in the year that they are incurred, rather than upon disposition of the case. I worked to address the concerns of my friends on the other side of the aisle. And last Friday, I introduced another bill S. 3335, the Jobs, Energy, Families and Disaster Relief Act of 2008. That is the bill that I hope the Senate will turn to this week. This legislation includes the core of the previous bill I introduced. It includes a strong energy package. It includes an AMT patch. And it includes the House-passed individual and business tax extenders. S. 3335 also contains several new items. In response to growing concerns over our Nation's crumbling infrastructure, this bill would shore up the highway trust fund. Last Wednesday, the House passed a stand-alone version of this highway fix by an overwhelming vote of 387 to 37. And S. 3335 contains billions in relief for those affected by devastating natural disasters. And in response to the other key criticism of S. 3125, the one related to attorneys' fees, S. 3335 dropped that provision altogether. In short, the bill that we will have a chance to vote on this week is aimed at helping create jobs, advancing our energy independence, helping working families, and offering relief to those areas that have experienced natural disasters. And by making major modifications to past versions of the bill, it is aimed at getting broad support. Now, some Senators really want to vote for this because it is the right thing to do. But they are told by the leadership: Don't do it. They want to vote for it; they are chafing at the bit to vote for it, but they are told not to do it. Why, I don't know. Now some on the other side have also objected that we should not consider a revenue bill that originated in the Senate. While it is true that the House must originate revenue bills, there is precedent for the Senate's acting in advance of the House. For example, the other side did just that in moving the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act in 2005. The Senate took up its bill, S. 2020, on November 16, 2005, nearly a month before the Senate received the House companion measure. And in the case of the bill before us this week, I think that it is important for Senators to be able to vote for the improved version of the bill, the bill that includes all the changes that I have been discussing. And after we get a good vote on this bill, we can move to amend a House-passed bill with our Senate measure. Congress needs to do more than just extend legislation. Congress should work on new policy, new legislation, and new ideas. We need to take a hard look at our Tax Code. We need to make it fairer and simpler. I have begun that process, through a series of hearings in the Finance Committee. We need to address the unsustainable growth in health care costs. I have also begun an effort to that end, through a series of hearings on health care, which accounts for one-sixth of America's economy. And we need to address the vital need for a new energy policy, one that accounts for the changing realities of our environment, our national security, and our economy. For more than a year, I have been working to pass a meaningful package of energy-tax incentives. It is a package with the goal of moving this country toward greater energy independence. And it is a package that would help to prepare our economy for a system that also addresses global warming. These are big challenges. And they will not be solved through one bill, or one congressional session. But even though we cannot finish the work, we still have an obligation to do what we can. This bill may not finish all the work that we need to do. But this bill does do work that we are obligated to do. Let us do that work. Let us invoke cloture on the motion to proceed. And let us provide this help to America's economy, to America's energy security, and to the wellbeing of America's working families.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. President Lyndon Johnson once wrote: A nation that fails to plan intelligently for the development and protection of its precious waters will be condemned to wither because of its shortsightedness. The hard lessons of history are clear, written on the deserted sands and ruins of once proud civilizations. I rise today to talk about a proud Nation from my home State of Montana that is planning for the development and protection of its priceless water. The nation I am referring to is the Crow Nation, and today, along with Senator Tester, I introduced a bill to ratify the Crow Tribe's water compact. This compact will protect the Crow Tribe's water rights, provide for the development of municipal and agricultural water systems, and create good paying jobs. Everyone has a right to have access to clean, reliable water, and Senator Tester and I are here today to help make sure that right is upheld. In 1908, the Supreme Court established that when Congress set aside land for Native American tribes, it also reserved water rights for the tribes to develop their lands for agriculture. The Crow Tribe has waited nearly 100 years to secure the rights to its water. The bill I am introducing today will ensure that the Crow people can finally access the water that is rightly theirs while protecting the water rights of nontribal water users. This bill that Senator Tester and I are introducing also ensures that the Crow Tribe has the infrastructure it needs to develop its water resources. To this end, the bill authorizes funding for a drinking water system that will bring clean water to families across the reservation. This project will help protect public health and help create good paying jobs. The bill also authorizes the rehabilitation of the Crow Tribe's irrigation system. The Crows' land is important to their identity, their history, and their economy. Rehabilitating the Crow Tribe's irrigation system will ensure that Crow farmers and ranchers can work their land for generations to come. Mr. President, the Crow Nation is a proud nation with abundant water resources. The bill I have developed with the Crow tribal leadership is a reflection of the Crow people's good foresight. This legislation will protect the Crow Tribe's water, create good paying jobs, and ensure that the Crow continue to be a proud and prosperous people.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Yes, the Senator is correct. And for this purpose a special need may relate to the physical facilities of the property, such as a building that offers day care, the services that are to be provided, or the circumstances of the tenants, such as low-income parents attending college.. The basic structure of the low-income housing tax credit is based on the premise that the States have the prime responsibility to administer this program, and they have done an excellent job so far. They currently have the responsibility to determine the housing priorities of the State and to give priority to tenant populations with special housing needs. The newly codified general public use rule reinforces the latitude of the States to decide how housing credit dollars are allocated.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Finance Committee staff be allowed floor privileges: Eric Taylor, Damian Kudelka, Helia Jazayeri, Mollie Lane, Adam Lythgoe, Ashleen Williams, Susan Hinck, Kevin Olp, Lucan Hamilton, Katie Meyer, Matt Smith, Connie Cookson, Hy Hinojosa, Mary Baker, and Bridget Mallon.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I object.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, T.S. Eliot wrote: ``Home is where one starts from.'' And that is true of the tax provisions of this housing bill, the Housing Assistance Tax Act. They start with home. They start with trying to help hardworking American families to stay in their homes. That's where we start. The tax provisions in this bill provide housing relief to homeowners and stability to the housing market at a critical time. For most Americans, their home is their biggest asset. Homes represent about a third of household net worth. But housing is losing its role as a source of family wealth creation. Nationally, since April of last year, home prices have fallen by more than 15 percent. This decline in home values is the largest that America has seen in 20 years. In addition to declining home values, homes sales have slowed, as foreclosures have risen. As of May 2008, sales of new single-family houses were about 40 percent below where they were a year before. Foreclosures are at their highest rate in at last three decades. In June, 1 in every 501 households was at some stage in the foreclosure process. Since January 2005, bank seizures have risen 171 percent. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 2.8 million foreclosure proceedings could be initiated in the next 4 years. About 1.1 million of these homeowners will ultimately lose their homes through foreclosure. Behind every foreclosed property, there is a family. There is a family losing its home and there is a community left behind. Another part of our housing story is the crisis in the housing finance system. The Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, known as Freddie Mac, are government sponsored enterprises, or GSEs. These GSEs provide critical financial support to the housing market. These GSEs are market-makers in America's secondary mortgage market. They help to replenish the money supply for mortgages. They help to make money available for housing purchases. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac own or guarantee about half of America's $12 trillion mortgage market. They support about 70 percent of new mortgages. The subprime mortgage crisis and ensuing home value declines have hit these GSEs particularly hard. Freddie Mac lost 73 percent of its value in New York trading this year. Fannie Mae lost 66 percent. Combined losses at the companies could run into the billions of dollars. These financial troubles have eroded confidence in the housing finance system. This threatens to destabilize the mortgage market vital to ordinary homebuyers. These are only some of the housing challenges facing American families today. Congress and the Senate Finance Committee, which I chair, recognize the importance of these matters. That is why we have taken action to alleviate the negative consequences of the housing crisis. In the bill before us, we curb the rising costs of owning a home by creating a nonitemizer property tax deduction for tax year 2008. Currently, homeowners are allowed to deduct local real estate property taxes from their Federal tax returns only if they itemize. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, more than 28 million taxpayers pay property taxes, but do not itemize. This bill would provide millions of home owners who claim the standard deduction with an additional standard deduction for state and local real property taxes. The maximum amount that may be claimed under this provision is $500 for an individual, or $1,000 for joint filers. The nonitemizer deduction would benefit people with low incomes. It would benefit those who have already paid off their mortgages and thus do not have a reason to itemize. It would benefit young families just starting out. And it would benefit senior citizens. The Congressional Research Service estimates that about 130,000 property-tax payers could benefit in my home State of Montana alone. This bill would help to reduce the excess supply in the housing market due to declining home values and rising foreclosures. It would do so with a refundable first-time home buyer credit. The bill would give first-time home buyers a refundable tax credit equivalent to an interest free loan of 10 percent of the purchase price of a home, up to $7,500. The provision applies to homes purchased between April 9, 2008, and July 1, 2009. Taxpayers receiving this tax credit would need to repay to the government any amount received under this provision. They could pay it back in equal installments over 15 years. The credit begins to phase out for taxpayers with adjusted gross income in excess of $75,000, or $150,000 in the case of a joint return. This first-time home buyer credit will provide significant, immediate stimulus to get potential homebuyers into the market and into homes. And it will help to get homebuilders, and the housing industry, back on track. The short-term nature of this credit is also critical because it would avoid over-subsidizing the housing industry in the long run. This bill would help current homeowners to avoid foreclosures with a temporary increase in mortgage revenue bonds. Under current law, there is a national limit on the annual amount of tax-exempt housing bonds that each state may issue. Many States have reached their limit. This bill would increase this national limit in 2008 to allow for the issuance of an additional $11 billion of tax-exempt bonds to provide loans to first-time home buyers and to finance the construction of low- income rental housing. The bill would also temporarily allow qualified mortgage revenue bonds to be used to refinance certain subprime loans. Mortgage revenue bonds are a form of tax-exempt bond issued by States to help provide financing to first-time home buyers. These bonds would result in mortgages with lower interest rates than conventional loans, making them more affordable for lower income borrowers. This bill would encourage the rebuilding of the low-income housing industry with a temporary increase in low-income housing tax credits. The low-income housing tax credit program helps finance the development of affordable rental housing for low-income families. The credit is the largest source of Federal funding for the construction and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing. Under current law, there is a State-by-State limit on the annual amount of Federal low-income housing tax credits. This limitation is currently set at $2 for each person living in the State. States with small populations are provided with a special set-aside. Our proposal would increase this limitation in 2008 and 2009 by an additional 20 cents for each person residing in the State. And it would increase the small State set-aside by 10 percent. This low-income housing tax credit enhancement could help to meet the needs of low-income families who have been displaced from their homes by foreclosure. More generally, the credit can assist low-income neighborhoods that have shortages of moderately priced rental housing. It could provide a boost to some distressed communities. This bill also includes reforms to real estate investment trust, or REITs. REITs can be corporations, trusts, or associations. They invest in real estate. And they elect to be taxed under a special tax regime, instead of under the tax rules for corporations. REITs are subject to complex rules that can limit the ability of these businesses to adjust to changing market conditions and to manage risk. The bill would liberalize these rules by clarifying that REITs can earn foreign currency income associated with real estate activities. The bill would increase the permissible size of REIT investments in taxable REIT subsidiaries. The bill would modify the REIT safe harbor for dealer sales. And the bill would extend the special rules for lodging facilities to health care facilities. My colleagues and I have worked long and hard to craft this response to our nation's pressing housing woes in a fiscally responsible way. This bill has achieved bipartisan and administration support. I believe that this bill will strengthen homes at a time when help is needed. The tax provisions work to bring stability to the housing marketplace for every homeowner. I am proud to be a part of this effort. This bill starts with the American home. It starts with trying to help hardworking American families to stay in their homes. Let's finish this bill and start helping to protect those homes today. Finally, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rangel and I have asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the public a technical explanation of the bill. The technical explanation expresses the committee's understanding and legislative intent behind this important legislation. It is available on the joint committee's Web site at www.jct.gov.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. The provision requires the bank, third party network, or third party processor that settles credit card payments with the merchant to report annually to the IRS and to the merchant the gross amount paid to the merchant during the calendar year. These reports may be made electronically. The effective day of the proposal was modified to apply to information returns for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2010. Back-up withholding provisions apply to amounts paid after December 31, 2011. Back-up withholding is required only if the paying institution does not have a valid taxpayer identification number on file for the merchant. In addition, for third party networks, there is an exception for transactions of $20,000 or less or 200 transactions or less.

Mr. BAUCUS. The IRS indicates that it intends to implement the information reports in a graduated way that will give the agency time to use the amounts on a 1099 in a manner to accurately and efficiently identify cases with higher likelihood of noncompliance, potentially sparing compliant businesses from unnecessary audits. Existing privacy rules will apply to the information reports required under this proposal.

Mr. BAUCUS. The provision provides the Secretary of Treasury with the authority to prescribe regulations or other guidance to implement this provision and prevent the reporting of the same transaction more than once.

Mr. BAUCUS. The benefits of this proposal are substantial. IRS research shows that there is 46 percent compliance rate when there is no information reporting and over 90 percent compliance when there is information reporting. There will be upfront programming costs which will be spread over a number of merchants and a period of years, which should help to minimize the costs to individual merchants.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my friend Senator Crapo to introduce an important piece of legislation that would help to strengthen the financial health of America's firearm and ammunition manufacturers, who in turn support wildlife conservation in America. The firearm and ammunition industry pays a Federal excise tax of 11 percent on long guns and ammunition and 10 percent on handguns. The Tax and Trade Bureau in the Treasury Department collects this tax. The Bureau sends the proceeds to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where they are deposited into the Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund, also known as the Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund. The tax is a major source of conservation funding in America. Since 1991, the firearm and ammunition industry has contributed about $3 billion to the Pittman-Robertson Fund. Of all the industries that pay excise taxes on the sale of their products to support wildlife conservation efforts, firearms and ammunition manufacturers are the only ones that have to pay excise taxes every 2 weeks. Other industries, such as archery and fishing, pay their tax every 3 months. This frequent payment obligation imposes a costly and inequitable burden on the firearms and ammunition industry. Manufacturers spend thousands of additional man-hours just to administer the paperwork associated with making the bi-weekly excise payments. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, changing the deposit schedule from a bi-weekly to quarterly payment would save the industry an estimated $21.6 million dollars a year. That's money that the industry could use for investment in researching and developing new products, purchasing new manufacturing plants and equipment, and communicating with the hunting and shooting sports community. Let me take a moment to explain what this legislation does not do. It does not reduce the firearm and ammunition industry's excise tax rates. It simply adds fairness to the tax code. It is important for my Colleagues to understand the history and nature of the firearm and ammunition excise tax. During the Great Depression, hunters and conservationists recognized that overharvesting of wildlife would destroy America's treasured wildlife and natural habitats. Sportsmen, state wildlife agencies, and the firearm and ammunition industries lobbied Congress to extend the existing 10 percent excise tax and impose a new 11 percent excise tax to create a new fund. The fund was called the Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund after Senator Key Pittman of Nevada and Representative A. Willis Robertson of Virginia. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the legislation into law in 1937. The industry, hunters, and conservationists came together to create this structure. They recognized the importance of conservation. And they encouraged Congress to impose a tax on their guns and ammo. It is a rare thing when taxpayers ask to be taxed. But preserving our country's wildlife habitat was and continues to be that important. Today, more than $700 million each year is generated and used exclusively to establish, restore, and protect wildlife habitats. Now let me explain the effect that the bill we are introducing today would have on the Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund. As the Joint Committee on Taxation explained in its revenue estimate, the net budget effect to the fund is $4 million. This is purely a result of the shift in the timing of collections, from bi-weekly to quarterly, over a 10-year budget window. Consumers of firearms and ammunition would still pay the exact same amount of tax. The firearm and ammunition industry recognizes the 10-year $4 million loss to the trust fund. The industry developed a comprehensive 5-year proposal to ease this effect. Under the proposal, the industry would contribute $150,000 a year for the next 5 years, a total of $750,000, to the fund. These actions again show the partnership between hunters, conservation groups, and the firearm and ammunition industry to protect conservation programs and initiatives. That is why this legislation is supported by the following groups: Archery Trade Association; Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; Boon and Young; Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation; Delta Waterfowl; Ducks Unlimited; National Rifle Association; National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.; National Wild Turkey Federation; North American Wetlands Conservation Council; Pheasants Forever; Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation; Safari Club International; Wildlife Management Institute; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance. I urge my Colleagues to support this legislation. I hope that we can come together, just as the industry, hunters, and conservation groups have, to pass this legislation. It's a matter of tax fairness. Let us do our part to correct this inequity in the tax code. Let us do our part to support an American business that in turn supports wildlife habitat restoration and conservation.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my friend Senator Crapo to introduce an important piece of legislation that would help to strengthen the financial health of America's firearm and ammunition manufacturers, who in turn support wildlife conservation in America. The firearm and ammunition industry pays a Federal excise tax of 11 percent on long guns and ammunition and 10 percent on handguns. The Tax and Trade Bureau in the Treasury Department collects this tax. The Bureau sends the proceeds to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where they are deposited into the Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund, also known as the Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund. The tax is a major source of conservation funding in America. Since 1991, the firearm and ammunition industry has contributed about $3 billion to the Pittman-Robertson Fund. Of all the industries that pay excise taxes on the sale of their products to support wildlife conservation efforts, firearms and ammunition manufacturers are the only ones that have to pay excise taxes every 2 weeks. Other industries, such as archery and fishing, pay their tax every 3 months. This frequent payment obligation imposes a costly and inequitable burden on the firearms and ammunition industry. Manufacturers spend thousands of additional man-hours just to administer the paperwork associated with making the bi-weekly excise payments. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, changing the deposit schedule from a bi-weekly to quarterly payment would save the industry an estimated $21.6 million dollars a year. That's money that the industry could use for investment in researching and developing new products, purchasing new manufacturing plants and equipment, and communicating with the hunting and shooting sports community. Let me take a moment to explain what this legislation does not do. It does not reduce the firearm and ammunition industry's excise tax rates. It simply adds fairness to the tax code. It is important for my Colleagues to understand the history and nature of the firearm and ammunition excise tax. During the Great Depression, hunters and conservationists recognized that overharvesting of wildlife would destroy America's treasured wildlife and natural habitats. Sportsmen, state wildlife agencies, and the firearm and ammunition industries lobbied Congress to extend the existing 10 percent excise tax and impose a new 11 percent excise tax to create a new fund. The fund was called the Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund after Senator Key Pittman of Nevada and Representative A. Willis Robertson of Virginia. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the legislation into law in 1937. The industry, hunters, and conservationists came together to create this structure. They recognized the importance of conservation. And they encouraged Congress to impose a tax on their guns and ammo. It is a rare thing when taxpayers ask to be taxed. But preserving our country's wildlife habitat was and continues to be that important. Today, more than $700 million each year is generated and used exclusively to establish, restore, and protect wildlife habitats. Now let me explain the effect that the bill we are introducing today would have on the Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund. As the Joint Committee on Taxation explained in its revenue estimate, the net budget effect to the fund is $4 million. This is purely a result of the shift in the timing of collections, from bi-weekly to quarterly, over a 10-year budget window. Consumers of firearms and ammunition would still pay the exact same amount of tax. The firearm and ammunition industry recognizes the 10-year $4 million loss to the trust fund. The industry developed a comprehensive 5-year proposal to ease this effect. Under the proposal, the industry would contribute $150,000 a year for the next 5 years, a total of $750,000, to the fund. These actions again show the partnership between hunters, conservation groups, and the firearm and ammunition industry to protect conservation programs and initiatives. That is why this legislation is supported by the following groups: Archery Trade Association; Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; Boon and Young; Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation; Delta Waterfowl; Ducks Unlimited; National Rifle Association; National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.; National Wild Turkey Federation; North American Wetlands Conservation Council; Pheasants Forever; Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation; Safari Club International; Wildlife Management Institute; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance. I urge my Colleagues to support this legislation. I hope that we can come together, just as the industry, hunters, and conservation groups have, to pass this legislation. It's a matter of tax fairness. Let us do our part to correct this inequity in the tax code. Let us do our part to support an American business that in turn supports wildlife habitat restoration and conservation.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, Senator Rockefeller and I, along with many of our colleagues, are introducing a joint resolution disapproving of an administrative rule related to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP. I urge my colleagues to support the joint resolution. I spent a lot of time talking about CHIP last year. We tried to expand and improve the program, so that it could help millions more kids across America. I remain disappointed that the President vetoed both of the reauthorization packages that Congress sent him. But I also remain committed to fighting for CHIP and the families whom it serves. That is why I am here today. Last summer, while House and Senate Democrats and Republicans were crafting reauthorization legislation, the administration issued what is known as the August 17th CHIP directive. The directive imposes significant new requirements on States wishing to expand eligibility for CHIP to kids from families with incomes above 250 percent of the Federal poverty line. The directive was viewed as overly restrictive and severe. It imposes unrealistic hurdles on States wishing to cover more kids under CHIP. The timing of the directive's release was seen as unfair, given that work on reauthorization was well underway. The process surrounding issuance of the directive also caused concern. Congressional reaction to the directive was so negative that we included in the CHIP reauthorization legislation a more reasonable alternative policy that would have supplanted the directive. The administration issued the directive in the form of a letter to State health officials. While the administration has the authority to use sub-regulatory letters for some things, it exceeded its authority on August 17, 2007. The CHIP directive letter was actually a rule. And the administration should have promulgated it as a rule. Both the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service determined that the directive is a rule. That the directive is a rule is significant, because of the Congressional Review Act. Congress passed the Congressional Review Act to protect and empower Congress. Congress meant for the law to keep Congress informed of the administrative rulemaking process. Congress meant for the law to provide an opportunity for Congress to review rules before they take effect. The Congressional Review Act requires an agency, prior to publishing a rule, to submit a copy of the rule to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General. In this instance, the agency did not submit its rule to either House of Congress or to the Comptroller General. So Congress was deprived of its opportunity for review. This was a violation of fair process. We should not tolerate it. Members of Congress should stand up for themselves and the institution by supporting this joint resolution. The Congressional Review Act imposes specific obligations on agencies and vests Congress with certain powers. On August 17, 2007, one agency attempted to ignore its obligations and Congress. The agency attempted to circumvent the process established by the Congressional Review Act. And the agency should not be rewarded. Congress should disapprove of this rule because the substance is so over-reaching and detrimental to America's kids. And Congress should also disapprove of this rule because it was issued in a way that was inconsistent with the law. This resolution is a way to tell low-income American families that they matter. This resolution is a way to say that Congress is willing to fight for them. I know that my home State of Montana is trying to expand its eligibility for CHIP. I support that effort. For me, this joint resolution is another way to show how important CHIP is to Montana's kids. The resolution is also a way for Congress to send the message that it expects agencies to comply with the law. Congress should stand up for itself and disapprove of this rule, because it was, not promulgated properly. I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution.