Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, April 30, 2008, at 3:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 30, 2008, at 10 a.m., in closed session to mark up the Airland programs and provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Secret Law and the Threat to Democratic and Accountable Government'' on Wednesday, April 30, 2008, at 9 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 30, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in closed session to mark up the Strategic Forces Programs and Provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 30, 2008, from 3-5 p.m., in Hart 216 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have some responses to the Senator from Illinois when we get back because they are bogus arguments. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, it is frankly unfortunate that we are getting all high bound here and wrapped up around the axle. The action by the majority leader, as I understand it, in effect has adopted the Durbin amendment, which off the top I think is regrettable. I think it is important that this body protect pension plans--all pension plans-- and the effect of the substitute would be to let a certain airline off the hook in providing enough protection to the plans. It has made big promises, but it is not fully funding the plan. Second, it is a bit disturbing that things have developed this way because I had discussions with the majority leader as to how we can resolve the Durbin amendment, how we can resolve that issue. It was my hope we could continue those negotiations and discussions to possibly take that issue off the table. I say to my good friend from Texas and to all Members, the leader asked me to work with Senator Rockefeller to come up with a bill that merges both the Commerce Committee bill and the Finance Committee bill. Senator Rockefeller and I did that. We sat down and worked out an agreement on the bill. It is unfortunate we are not starting with that agreement because it is a good-faith agreement and it also included tax provisions. We have to have tax provisions to pay for our airlines, for the trust fund, the airline trust fund. We have to have tax provisions to pay for the highway trust fund. Again, we negotiated this out, the chairman and I did, Senator Rockefeller and I did in good faith and we came up with the measure which I think is fair. Now, fairly, Senators have the right to offer amendments and should offer amendments. After all, this is the Senate. I think there is a way to work out the Durbin amendment. I made a suggestion to the majority leader as to how to do that, and I think it would be helpful if those negotiations could continue as we unwind one of the problems we are faced with. But second, I hope we can get away from the situation the minority leader described, which is filling up the tree which tends to get us stuck. The goal is not to get stuck; the goal is to seek an expeditious process and to move along quickly. We have been spending all afternoon doing nothing, frankly. I made a suggestion as to how to deal with at least one significant part and that is the Durbin amendment, and it would be my hope that, as has been suggested, when the Sun rises tomorrow and we all sleep on this a little bit, cooler heads prevail, and we can find a way to get from here to there. That means passing the FAA bill, which deals with issues Senator Hutchison has talked about and which also finances the airport trust fund and the highway trust fund--that is, the plussed-up highway trust fund--and also a way to resolve the Durbin amendment in a fair and equitable way. Because nobody is 100 percent right here. Senator Durbin is not 100 percent right and I am not 100 percent right. But I do think there is a way to resolve this, and I hope this evening we can think about it, sleep on it, and work it out.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, first, I appreciate the words of the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Texas and their willingness to work out an accommodation on the pension provision. Second, I caution this body about potentially separating these bills because the revenues provided in the bill are for the airport trust fund. I think that is very important. Also, the revenues are provided for NextGen, which is the next generation of air traffic control infrastructure, as they move from analog to satellite. European countries already have it. We need it here. We are behind the times. We need the money to get started. So I wonder about the advisability of separating those provisions. Third, our highway trust fund is in deep trouble because of inflation, fuel costs, and construction costs going up. It is important that we so-called plus-up the highway trust fund and revenues there. The ways we are paying for the highway trust fund have been agreed to by the Commerce Committee and the Finance Committee, Senator Rockefeller and myself. We agreed. That should not be an issue. The ways we are paying for the highway trust fund are provisions that are very meek and mild, not inflammatory at all. One is to limit fuel fraud. We should do that. Next, we should increase the solvency of the liability trust fund. That has not been opposed by anybody that I am aware of. That is jobs. We know this country and our growth rate is not what we would like it to be, and we could work this out. Again, here we are at about 7 o'clock this evening, and a lot of good words have been spoken in good faith. Let's follow up and try to find a solution tomorrow.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following fellows and interns of the Finance Committee be allowed floor privileges during consideration of the FAA bill: Ben Miller, Bridget Mallon, Damian Kudelka, Emily Schwartz, Ezana Teferra, Mary Baker, Tamara Clay, and Tom Louthan.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Leighton Quon of my staff be granted the privileges of the floor during consideration of the FAA bill.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all the time remaining for morning business be yielded back.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, at 5:30 this afternoon, the Senate will vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the reauthorization of the airport and airway trust fund, also known as the aviation trust fund. I urge my colleagues to support getting to this important bill. Before getting to the specifics of the bill, however, I would like to give some perspective on our current aviation system. And I will start with the story of Sir Robert Watson-Watt. Robert Watson-Watt was born in Scotland in 1892. He was a descendant of the steam-engine pioneer James Watt. Robert was a student of science, with a fascination for radio waves and how they might be used to transmit information. After finishing school, he got a job as a meteorologist at the Royal Aircraft Factory, not far from London. He worked on developing methods of using radio waves to help British airmen locate and avoid thunderstorms. After years of work, in 1935, Watson-Watt produced a report called ``The Detection of Aircraft by Radio Methods.'' The report suggested a new idea. The idea was that people could use shortwave radio to detect not only bad weather, but also aircraft, including bombers. Watson-Watt's superiors tested his theory, and it worked. They called his new gizmo RADAR, an acronym for radio detection and ranging. By the time that World War II broke out in September 1939, the British Government had installed radar all along the English Channel and the North Sea coasts. That gave the British advance warning of Hitler's bombers. Acclaimed historian A.J.P. Taylor said he doubted that Britain could have survived the Second World War without Watson- Watt's invention. Next, radar was ready for commercial application. All civil aviation needed for dramatic growth was a faster set of planes. That happened with advent of the jet engine in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1952, what is now British Airways introduced the de Havilland Comets. Those were 36-seat British-made jets that could fly as fast as 500 miles an hour. Six years later, the Boeing 707 entered commercial service. Pan Am flew it from New York to Paris in just under 9 hours-- twice as fast as a propeller plane. It took Charles Lindberg 33 hours--almost four times longer. Seven years after that, in February 1969, the world's first wide-body jet--the Boeing 747--made its inaugural flight. With seating for up to 450 passengers, the 747 was 80 percent bigger than the largest jet of that time. The era of mass aviation was in full swing. But as air travel flourished, growing pains ensued. And by the late 1960s, public concern over air-traffic had spilled into the headlines: Here's a news story from 1967. Thicket in the Skies. . . . When a passenger hops a commercial plane to get from here to there quickly, he soon discovers that man does not live by one means of transportation alone. The Labor Day weekend congestion and peril underscores the point. . . . And here's another story, from May 1969: FAA Predicts Summer Air Jam. . . . [The FAA] forecast yesterday that, despite Federal restrictions that would limit flights at five major airports beginning June 1, air travelers might have another summer of frustrating delays. In short, the air transport system had grown beyond anyone's expectations. Change was needed. Congress responded by passing groundbreaking legislation. In May 1970, Congress passed the aviation trust fund. Congress built on a Nixon administration proposal to adopt a law in which users of the aviation system paid for its upkeep. The new law imposed taxes on tickets, fuel, cargo, and the like. And the law established the aviation trust fund to provide a stable source of funding for our Nation's aviation needs. Despite some ups and downs over the last 38 years--including a lapse of the Trust Fund in the early 1980s--this system of funding air traffic has by and large succeeded. The rates of the taxes have changed. And some--like those on aircraft tires--have been phased out. But generally, this Trust Fund has managed to finance the needs of the air-traveling public. Not anymore. Our system needs modernization, to improve efficiency and safety. Our 2008 trust fund, born in the 1970s, is paying for 1930s technology. That will change with passage of this bill. That will change with the adoption of NextGen. And that brings us to the bill in connection with which we will vote this afternoon--the reauthorization of the airport and airway trust fund, also known as the aviation trust fund. The trust fund finances the U.S. aviation system, with about $12 billion per year in user-based taxes. The Senate substitute amendment would provide an additional $800 million to the trust fund over the next 3 years. The bill would provide needed funds to modernize our aviation system. The Senate substitute amendment is a compromise product. It represents months of work on the part of the Finance and Commerce Committees. Its passage promises improvements in safety and efficiency for air travelers. Key to that improvement is NextGen. NextGen is the Federal Aviation Administration's plan to modernize the Nation's air-traffic system. NextGen would address the effect of air traffic growth. It would increase air-traffic capacity and efficiency. And it would improve safety and reduce the effect of air travel on the environment. Generally speaking, NextGen involves the use of satellite-based technology. This includes items like Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast. ADS-B would allow aircraft to continuously transmit location, speed, and altitude to other planes, pilots, and controllers. And that would improve the efficiency and safety of air traffic. Instead of using Watson-Watt's radar to tell where they are, planes equipped with ADS-B get their exact location from Global Positioning System satellites. They then broadcast their flight number, speed, and heading--automatically and continuously--to ground control and other planes within 150 miles. This is a sea change in air-traffic technology. And we need to invest in it now. So how do we pay for NextGen? The Finance Committee passed a bill to pay for NextGen this way: First, we set the tax for General Aviation jet fuel at 36 cents a gallon. That is up from the current 21.9 cents a gallon. This proposal was agreed to by the General Aviation community. And it will raise about $240 million a year in additional funds for NextGen. Note that this proposal does not affect those who fly planes using ``avgas,'' such as a propeller-powered Cessna. Second, we moved partially owned planes--known as ``fractional'' aircraft--from the commercial taxation regime to that of General Aviation. Fractional owners expressed concern that without this change, their ability to fly and land in Europe would be hampered. The European Union has strict rules governing which airports commercial flights can use. And this change should allow fractional aircraft to be considered as general aviation not commercial aviation. This change comes with a cost to the fractional users. The Senate substitute amendment drops a proposed increase on the tax on international departures and arrivals. The Finance Committee bill proposed raising that rate--currently at $15.40--by $1.55 each way. That is just over $3 roundtrip. We argued that if someone had the wherewithal to travel overseas, then the cost of a Starbucks at the airport was a reasonable price to pay for contributing to a modernized air traffic system. But given the state of the commercial airline industry, Senator Rockefeller and I agreed to drop this provision. In the face of dramatically higher fuel prices and mounting financial losses, we agreed that this was not the time to raise extra funds from the commercial industry. All told, the package in the Senate substitute amendment raises an additional $800 million over the next 3 years. More may be needed, especially given the rapid state of technological change. I know that both the Finance Committee and Commerce Committee plan to monitor NextGen's implementation. And since this is just a 3-year reauthorization, we will be back at this again before long. Finally, I will note that this bill is not just about aviation. The Finance Committee package also contains other critical infrastructure items, including a direly needed fix to the highway trust fund. The highway trust fund will run a deficit in 2009, unless Congress acts to repair that deficit. In a time when our surface transportation suffers as much as--if not more so--than our air transport system, it is imperative that Congress act to restore needed monies to the highway trust fund. We need to finance construction and repair of our Nation's roads and bridges. Taxes on gasoline, diesel, and heavy trucks finance the highway trust fund. The highway trust fund is thus sensitive to changes in the use of these items. As Americans drive less, and as vehicle fuel-efficiency increases, the highway trust fund's balance has taken a significant hit. A highway trust fund deficit is projected for 2009. And even worse projections are expected for 2010 and beyond. As we get nearer to the next highway bill, it's important that we at least make the highway trust fund whole going into 2009. The Senate substitute amendment would do that. And I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, we'll have a vigorous debate this week. And I look forward to it. But before that debate begins in earnest, I want to thank my colleagues--particularly Senators Rockefeller and Inouye--for their willingness to seek common ground. I think that the Senate substitute amendment is a good package. So let us help to bring air travel from Robert Watson-Watt's 1935 idea into the 21st century. Let us adopt NextGen to improve safety and efficiency in the skies. And let us vote to move to this bill this afternoon. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be equally divided between the two sides.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wish to recognize a distinguished and decorated World War II U.S. Army Air Corps veteran from my home State of Montana. Born in the small, humble town of Forsyth, 1LT Roy E. June comes as an inspiration to those who wish to lead a life of service to their country and their communities. From the tragedy of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, came America's greatest generation responding to the certain urgency of that era. Like many young men of that generation, Roy and his buddies enlisted in the Armed Forces to defend their country and to advance the just cause of freedom. In the U.S. Army Air Corps, Roy's bravery and skills as a fighter pilot set him above the rest. As a P-51 Mustang fighter pilot, Roy escorted B-29 bombers to Japan, strafed and dive-bombed strategic military installations on Chi Chi Jima. For his heroism in the Pacific Theater, Roy earned an Air Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster and the Distinguished Flying Cross. His 15th Fighter Group, the 47th Fighter Squadron was awarded a Distinguished Unit Citation. A fellow returning from Hawaii brought news about the end of the war. ``Atomic Bomb Dropped On Japan'' read the headline of the Honolulu Daily Advertiser. After 11 missions over Japan and more than 500 combat hours in the P-51s, Roy returned home to Missoula in January 1946. Having grown up in the great State of Montana, Roy could recall many fond memories from his youth in his hometown of Forsyth. Roy was a Boy Scout and played center on the high school football team. Summers meant Huck Finn adventures and odd jobs; winters, though harsh, saw skating parties on the Yellowstone and ice hockey using sticks and tin cans. Before he joined the Air Corps, Roy studied engineering at the Montana State College in Bozeman. And like all Montanans who believe a good education is a lifelong process, Roy went back to school after his return from war. With degrees in journalism and business administration from the University of Montana in Missoula, Roy entered law school in 1949. There he met his wife Laura Jane Brautigam, also a native of Montana. Receiving his law degree in 1952, Roy went on to practice law in Helena where he helped to draft bills for State senators during the 1953 session. In Billings, he became an associate in the law firm of Sanders, Cresap and Koch representing groups such as the National Beef Council and the National Livestock Auction Markets. A few years later, Roy moved to California to serve as the city attorney for Costa Mesa. He took with him the spirit of Montana generosity and incorporated several nonprofit companies pro bono as his contribution to his community. Even after his retirement in December 1996, Roy continues to give back to his community by volunteering at the Palm Springs Air Museum. Armed with firsthand knowledge of World War II aviation and the conflicts in the Pacific Theater, Roy shares his vivid experience with all, much to the delight of visitors, young and old. Mr. President, 1LT Roy June is a testament to the Montana spirit. We believe in courage, sacrifice, and service. From Montana to the Japanese Islands of Iwo Jima and Chi Chi Jima, wherever Roy was, he put up his best for his community and more importantly, his country. My fellow Montanans and I are extremely proud of Roy and his contributions to our State and Nation. A son of Montana from America's greatest generation, Roy reminds all of us that commitment and service to this country never end.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a tax package that would extend relief from the alternative minimum tax and extend other much-needed individual and business provisions. When the economy is turning down, Americans need certainty about their taxes. Families and businesses need to know what the tax law is. That is why my bill provides a one year patch for the AMT. The patch will hold the number of taxpayers subject to the AMT at 4.2 million. We will not let more taxpayers fall into the alternative minimum tax. Last year, Congress did not put a patch in place until December. We must act sooner this year. Through this bill, Congress can act. That is why my package contains a 2-year extension of provisions that expired at the end of last year. These include the qualified tuition deduction to give families relief from high tuition costs. My package also includes the teacher expense deduction. This deduction gives teachers some of the money that they spend on school supplies to educate our children. The package also includes the State and local sales tax deduction for those States without an income tax. The bill offers an extension of the research and development credit. This credit gives an incentive to businesses to invest in research. It helps to keep America competitive in the global economy. My package will also extend provisions that expire this year for an additional year. The bill extends much-needed energy provisions. Public and private investment in the renewable energy sector was about $90 billion worldwide last year. That's a 27 percent increase over 2006. Congress can direct this investment toward the U.S.--rather than overseas--by supporting clean energy tax incentives. These incentives include tax credits for wind and solar power, efficient buildings and appliances, and clean renewable energy bonds. These provisions are not only good energy policy. They also create jobs. This package would also extend wind and solar provisions. The American solar industry employs 20,000 Americans. With a long- term extension of the solar tax credit, that number would triple. The American wind industry expanded by 45 percent in 2007. It contributed about 30 percent of the new power capacity in America last year. These job-creating industries are growing fast. We should support them. We know what happens when we don't. For example, the tax credit for production of renewable energy was enacted in 1992, starting the growth of renewable power in the U.S. But since 1999, this credit has expired three times. And when it expires, clean energy suffers, leading to declines between 73 percent and 93 percent in wind energy investment. We need to keep this credit going to ensure consistent investment in the wind power industry. This package would also promote energy efficiency. Efficiency is the low- hanging fruit in the energy debate. We can make big strides toward energy independence and a clean environment by getting more for our energy buck. For example, ENERGY STAR--a voluntary labeling program designed to promote energy-efficient products--saved businesses, organizations, and consumers an estimated $14 billion in 2006. Efficiency also creates jobs. The American Solar Energy Society reported that in 2006, the efficiency industry created 8 million jobs, over half of them in manufacturing. The government plays a key role in sustaining the efficiency industry, through tax incentives for efficient commercial buildings, homes, and appliances. This package would also extend the clean renewable energy bonds, or CREBs. CREBs passed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. CREBs spurred more than 700 new wind, biomass, solar, and hydro projects. The number of projects far exceeded the funding available to pay for them. But CREBs funding lapsed at the end of 2007. That halted development of new projects and the green-collar jobs that go with them. We must keep these projects going. The CREBs provision was written for non-taxable entities like rural co-ops. Those non-taxable entities cannot use other tax incentives in this package. I've listed just a few of the important energy items in this extenders bill. There are more. And I plan to build upon this package as it makes its way through the legislative process, with edits and additional items. The Finance Committee has been working to that end for the better part of a year. Last June, the Finance Committee passed a roughly $30 billion energy- tax package, with a resounding bipartisan vote. A majority of the Senate voted for that bill. But we were just shy of getting the required 60 votes. We tried again in December, with a slimmer package. That time, we fell short of the required 60 by just one vote. We then tried in February, as part of economic stimulus bill. We offered a package very similar to what passed last week. That amendment got 58 votes. Last week, this body passed, by a solid 88-8 vote, a package of energy-tax extenders, similar to the package considered during the economic stimulus debate. A vote of 88 to 8 might suggest that there is smooth sailing ahead on energy-tax legislation. But I'm afraid that's not the case. The day before the Senate passed its housing bill, including the energy-tax package, the House Ways and Means Committee passed its own housing relief bill. The Ways and Means bill restated the House's position on pay-go. The House requires that the most of the tax package be offset. How did the Ways and Means Committee offset the bill? Largely with a provision called ``basis reporting.'' President Bush included this in his 2009 budget proposal. In other words, the House paid for a tax package with an item already supported, at least in principle, by the President. While I believe that this Congress should have paid for energy-tax legislation with the offsets passed by Finance Committee last year, it's not clear that passing that package gets us any further to extending these important tax incentives. That is why I have been working on offsets that can pass both bodies and be signed by the President. That is what I will continue to do to get these important energy items--as well as other vital extenders-- passed. By taking care of this now, we can spend more of our time on other things like tax reform. I plan to hold several hearings and roundtables to cuss tax reform. We began this week. I'm serious about simplifying our tax code. I am serious about helping the American people. Congress should do more than just extend legislation. Congress needs to work on new policy, new legislation, and new ideas. And by enacting this legislation, we can turn to those important goals. I urge my colleagues to support this package. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a tax package that would extend relief from the alternative minimum tax and extend other much-needed individual and business provisions. When the economy is turning down, Americans need certainty about their taxes. Families and businesses need to know what the tax law is. That is why my bill provides a one year patch for the AMT. The patch will hold the number of taxpayers subject to the AMT at 4.2 million. We will not let more taxpayers fall into the alternative minimum tax. Last year, Congress did not put a patch in place until December. We must act sooner this year. Through this bill, Congress can act. That is why my package contains a 2-year extension of provisions that expired at the end of last year. These include the qualified tuition deduction to give families relief from high tuition costs. My package also includes the teacher expense deduction. This deduction gives teachers some of the money that they spend on school supplies to educate our children. The package also includes the State and local sales tax deduction for those States without an income tax. The bill offers an extension of the research and development credit. This credit gives an incentive to businesses to invest in research. It helps to keep America competitive in the global economy. My package will also extend provisions that expire this year for an additional year. The bill extends much-needed energy provisions. Public and private investment in the renewable energy sector was about $90 billion worldwide last year. That's a 27 percent increase over 2006. Congress can direct this investment toward the U.S.--rather than overseas--by supporting clean energy tax incentives. These incentives include tax credits for wind and solar power, efficient buildings and appliances, and clean renewable energy bonds. These provisions are not only good energy policy. They also create jobs. This package would also extend wind and solar provisions. The American solar industry employs 20,000 Americans. With a long- term extension of the solar tax credit, that number would triple. The American wind industry expanded by 45 percent in 2007. It contributed about 30 percent of the new power capacity in America last year. These job-creating industries are growing fast. We should support them. We know what happens when we don't. For example, the tax credit for production of renewable energy was enacted in 1992, starting the growth of renewable power in the U.S. But since 1999, this credit has expired three times. And when it expires, clean energy suffers, leading to declines between 73 percent and 93 percent in wind energy investment. We need to keep this credit going to ensure consistent investment in the wind power industry. This package would also promote energy efficiency. Efficiency is the low- hanging fruit in the energy debate. We can make big strides toward energy independence and a clean environment by getting more for our energy buck. For example, ENERGY STAR--a voluntary labeling program designed to promote energy-efficient products--saved businesses, organizations, and consumers an estimated $14 billion in 2006. Efficiency also creates jobs. The American Solar Energy Society reported that in 2006, the efficiency industry created 8 million jobs, over half of them in manufacturing. The government plays a key role in sustaining the efficiency industry, through tax incentives for efficient commercial buildings, homes, and appliances. This package would also extend the clean renewable energy bonds, or CREBs. CREBs passed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. CREBs spurred more than 700 new wind, biomass, solar, and hydro projects. The number of projects far exceeded the funding available to pay for them. But CREBs funding lapsed at the end of 2007. That halted development of new projects and the green-collar jobs that go with them. We must keep these projects going. The CREBs provision was written for non-taxable entities like rural co-ops. Those non-taxable entities cannot use other tax incentives in this package. I've listed just a few of the important energy items in this extenders bill. There are more. And I plan to build upon this package as it makes its way through the legislative process, with edits and additional items. The Finance Committee has been working to that end for the better part of a year. Last June, the Finance Committee passed a roughly $30 billion energy- tax package, with a resounding bipartisan vote. A majority of the Senate voted for that bill. But we were just shy of getting the required 60 votes. We tried again in December, with a slimmer package. That time, we fell short of the required 60 by just one vote. We then tried in February, as part of economic stimulus bill. We offered a package very similar to what passed last week. That amendment got 58 votes. Last week, this body passed, by a solid 88-8 vote, a package of energy-tax extenders, similar to the package considered during the economic stimulus debate. A vote of 88 to 8 might suggest that there is smooth sailing ahead on energy-tax legislation. But I'm afraid that's not the case. The day before the Senate passed its housing bill, including the energy-tax package, the House Ways and Means Committee passed its own housing relief bill. The Ways and Means bill restated the House's position on pay-go. The House requires that the most of the tax package be offset. How did the Ways and Means Committee offset the bill? Largely with a provision called ``basis reporting.'' President Bush included this in his 2009 budget proposal. In other words, the House paid for a tax package with an item already supported, at least in principle, by the President. While I believe that this Congress should have paid for energy-tax legislation with the offsets passed by Finance Committee last year, it's not clear that passing that package gets us any further to extending these important tax incentives. That is why I have been working on offsets that can pass both bodies and be signed by the President. That is what I will continue to do to get these important energy items--as well as other vital extenders-- passed. By taking care of this now, we can spend more of our time on other things like tax reform. I plan to hold several hearings and roundtables to cuss tax reform. We began this week. I'm serious about simplifying our tax code. I am serious about helping the American people. Congress should do more than just extend legislation. Congress needs to work on new policy, new legislation, and new ideas. And by enacting this legislation, we can turn to those important goals. I urge my colleagues to support this package. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I would say to my colleagues from Maryland and Nevada that I, too, think that in the current economy, a temporary tax credit is a meritorious idea. I commend the Senators for working so hard on their amendment and I can understand their disappointment. It appears that, yesterday, the Ways and Means Committee adopted a credit more along the lines the Senators have proposed. I look forward to working with the House in a conference to craft a homebuyer tax credit that will help the housing market recover. There are many things we can and should do to help homeowners and a targeted, temporary homebuyer credit is one of them.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am proud to have worked with my colleague Chuck Grassley on the important tax relief measures in this bill. They will help homeowners, homebuyers, and homebuilders. And I urge my colleagues to support them. The tax provisions in the bill come to a little over $10 billion over 10 years. The bill creates a standard property tax deduction for homeowners who do not itemize their Federal taxes. And that deduction will help low- and middle-income homeowners to afford to keep their homes. The bill increases funding for mortgage revenue bonds. And those bonds will help homeowners and homebuyers to obtain affordable loans. The bill provides a substantial credit to buyers of foreclosed homes. And that credit will help to stabilize local markets and restore property values. The bill allows companies losing money--and laying off employees--to write off current losses and bolster struggling operations. And that ability to carry over losses will help struggling companies to keep workers on the payroll. There is no magic solution to this housing crisis. This bill is just plain responsible policy. It addresses a lot of irresponsible actions that led to serious trouble for many Americans and for our economy. To respond to this crisis, Senator Grassley and I crafted provisions that support American families and American workers. These folks deserve to keep their homes. And they deserve to keep their jobs. This bill will put real money in their pockets. It will do so through tax relief. And it will do so through continued paychecks from companies that use the tax relief in the bill to survive. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Let's send it to the House. Let's send its tax relief to American homeowners, homebuyers, and homebuilders. And let's speed this help to American families and American workers.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I might ask, Mr. President, if we are not in morning business, then what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. BAUCUS. The Chair is assuming my intention, which I will ignore at this moment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, John F. Kennedy once said: ``Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer.'' President Bush has said that he intends to submit the implementing legislation for the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. He did so against the will of Congress, and he thus did not seek the right answer. He did not even bother with the Republican or the Democratic answer. The administration simply chose the easy answer. The administration's easy answer is also the wrong answer. It is the wrong answer for American workers. It is the wrong answer for the administration's relationship with Congress. It is the wrong answer for Colombian workers. The Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement is a good trade agreement that will level the playing field for America's exporters. It will open the new export market for American products, including Montana beef, wheat, and barley, and it will bolster a close ally in a troubled region. Expanding trade and supporting Colombia are important priorities. That is why the administration should have handled this agreement the right way. Had the administration sought the right answer, it would have worked harder to support my top priority: American workers. Had the administration not rushed forward with the easy answer, we could have had trade adjustment assistance in place before considering this agreement. We need expanded and effective trade adjustment assistance for America's workers. That is clear. That means ensuring that America's service workers--not just its manufacturers and its farmers-- receive the help they need. Service workers make up 80 percent of our workforce. They have helped to build and support the knowledge-based economy that is the engine of America's growth. They work hard. They deserve our support in return. Expanded and effective trade adjustment assistance must also cover workers whose jobs have been shipped offshore, not just as a result of trade agreements but others as well. It must raise the health care tax credit to make it affordable and accessible, and expanded and effective TAA--trade adjustment assistance--must double the training funds available to our workers. Were the administration serious about this agreement, it would not have resorted to the easy procedural answers either. In high school civics class, they teach that the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate foreign commerce. Congress entrusted this power temporarily--and, I might add, importantly, conditionally--to the administration under something called trade promotion authority; that is, Congress did not write a blank check. By submitting the agreement now and against Congress's will, the administration abuses the power Congress granted it. By forcing Congress to consider this agreement now, the administration offends the trust of Congress and violates the compact that is the essence of fast track; that is, trade promotion authority. When Congress extended trade promotion authority--or, as people call it, fast track--they did so on the condition that the administration would consult with Congress about the text of proposed agreements before it sent them up. Congress set up an informal markup process to apply before the administration formally sent up the legislation. That informal procedure is very important. It was to be conducted, again, before the administration formally sent up its legislative language. The administration has now completely bypassed that process. Now Congress has no opportunity to affect the language of the proposed agreement. This administration has said: It is my way or the highway. Procedural checks and balances are the cornerstone of the congressional-executive relationship. It is the cornerstone of trade promotion authority. Democratic and Republican administrations have both respected this cornerstone. But today, this administration shattered this cornerstone. By so doing, they further diminish our trust. By sending up the implementing bill today; that is, before consultation in the right way, the administration has failed to deliver the right answer for Colombia's workers. Colombia's workers must know that they can safely pursue equality and justice in the workplace, free from the violence that has plagued Colombia in the past. The Colombian Government has made great strides in this area. The enforceable labor provisions in the United States-Colombia trade agreement are a critical step to ensuring further progress. We must make sure the Colombian Government takes these obligations seriously. They must show that these obligations are not just paper promises. The normal congressional fast-track process of hearings and formal markups--which the administration has short-circuited--is an important time for Congress to air concerns, exercise its leverage. It allows Congress to ensure that the Colombian Government is committed to prosecuting labor violence. These hearings are important to accomplish that objective. It gives us real leverage to seek commitments from the Colombian Government and the administration to create a work environment in Colombia grounded in law and backed by action. It also allows Congress the chance to help the Colombian Government, through funding provisions included in the implementing bill, to create an environment where those who seek a better life through employment can flourish. Short-circuiting the process and forcing a premature vote on a trade agreement does nothing to help Congress accomplish these goals. The President's unprecedented handling of the United States-Colombia Free Trade Agreement raises extraordinary questions about how we can move this agreement forward. For America's workers, for the relationship between Congress and the President, for the Colombian people, Congress must now find answers. Finding the right answer has never been easy. By submitting this agreement as it did and when it did, the administration has sought the easy answer, but in the end, the administration has simply made it harder to find the right answer. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, a Chinese proverb asks: How can one beam alone support a house? The same can be asked about the housing market. The housing market includes homeowners, home buyers, and homebuilders alike. To support the entire housing market, one does best to support each of its several parts. That is why I worked with my colleague, Senator Chuck Grassley, and other members of the Finance Committee to craft the housing tax provisions in the pending substitute amendment. These provisions address the several parts of the housing market. Our legislation would help homeowners, home buyers, and homebuilders. In so doing, our legislation would provide sounder support for the market as a whole. In today's economy, many homeowners are having difficulty paying the mortgage. About 4 percent of first-mortgage debt is delinquent. Another 1 percent is in default. Last year, nearly 1.5 million homeowners defaulted on their first mortgages. That is up from 900,000 in the year before and 800,000 in the year before that. Defaults and foreclosures have contributed to the decline in housing prices. They have destroyed more than $2.5 trillion in household net worth in the space of a year. Our legislation would help homeowners with a property tax deduction available for people who do not itemize their tax deductions. This new deduction would alleviate some of the burden of local property taxes, at a time when homeowners are struggling to pay their mortgages. This new property tax deduction would provide a standard deduction for up to $500 for single filers and $1,000 for joint filers. It would be available to the more than 28 million families who pay property taxes but who do not itemize their deductions. These are middle- and low-income households. These are some of the same families in the housing market who most need relief. For home buyers, our legislation includes a home buyer credit and mortgage revenue bonds. The home buyer tax credit provides a $7,000 tax credit for the purchase of a home upon which foreclosure has been filed. The tax credit rightfully excludes second-home purchases and rental investments. It focuses on the principal residences of struggling families. By targeting foreclosed properties, our provision would get families into vacant homes. By targeting homes that are near foreclosure, our credit may steer home buyers to those homes. That may make enough difference to help some families to get out of foreclosure and out of harsh eviction proceedings. Our legislation also includes mortgage revenue bonds. We would provide an additional $10 billion of tax-exempt private activity bond authority. States could use these bonds to refinance subprime loans, to provide mortgages for first-time home buyers, and to provide multifamily rental housing. This substantial increase for the States comes at a critical time. States are directly experiencing the effects of the economic downturn. With the financial crisis tightening up lending, this cash can provide much needed financing. That financing will once again help low- to middle-income households. The subprime mortgage crisis and declining housing sales have forced many homebuilders to lose money. According to the most recent Labor Department report, construction and manufacturing are the hardest hit sectors of the economy. Construction shed 51,000 jobs so far this year, and manufacturing shed 48,000 jobs so far this year. Construction employment alone is down 182,000 jobs since November. It is down by 356,000 jobs over last year. Overall, the private sector has lost 296,000 jobs over the last 3 months. That is a loss of 97,000 jobs a month. For homebuilders, our package would allow businesses to carry back losses to profitable tax years. That would help the homebuilders hit the hardest by the housing market crisis. The pending amendment would allow troubled businesses to carry back net operating losses for 4 years, for tax years 2008 and 2009. That would allow them to receive quick tax refunds. This tax relief would slow losses. These businesses would then have a quick cash infusion to meet payroll and other current expense obligations. We hope this relief would encourage these businesses to rehire some of those workers who have lost their jobs. This provision benefits both employers and employees. As well, the net operating loss provisions in the pending amendment would allow homebuilders and other distressed businesses to take the book benefit of a net operating loss before claiming the amount on their tax return. This would help distressed businesses to obtain additional financing. Now, these provisions alone would clearly not solve the housing market woes facing this Nation, but by helping homeowners, home buyers and homebuilders, we would take a significant step in the right direction. No one piece of legislation can solve all of our problems but inaction most certainly will solve none of our problems. That is why we must act. We should bring debate to a close. We should invoke cloture this afternoon. We should pass this much needed tax relief. Let's not rely on one beam alone to support an entire structure. Let's pass this help for home buyers, homebuilders, and homeowners, and let's provide this much needed support for the housing market.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. BAUCUS

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, April 8, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a nomination hearing.

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, April 8, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing on Iraq.