[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20072-20096]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        RENEWABLE ENERGY AND JOB CREATION ACT OF 2008--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and I 
ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the importance 
of the renewable energy amendment that is coming before us on the next 
vote in the Senate. For the past several months I have worked with 
Senator Cantwell, as well as many other Members of this body, in a 
bipartisan manner to develop a way forward on renewable energies.
  We know and agree that more renewable green energy is needed for the 
United States. That was evidenced by an amendment that Senator Cantwell 
and I brought to the floor on the housing bill last April that passed 
by a vote of 88 to 8. We all realize that there is broad bipartisan 
consensus and that we want more renewable green energy for the United 
States.
  The question was, how do we get it enacted into law? What we have 
before us today, through working together in a bipartisan way once 
again, is a compromise of how to offset the cost of some of these tax 
credits.
  I am very pleased that, with the help of Chairman Baucus and Ranking 
Member Grassley of the Finance Committee, Senator Cantwell and I were 
able to come up with this renewable energy amendment that is fully 
offset and fully paid for, so that we can get this bill finally passed 
into law.
  What does this mean for our country? Well, first, I think most 
Americans are well aware of what is going on in Washington right now. 
Our country is on the brink of financial catastrophe. We are working 
very hard to stop this from happening and bring consumer confidence 
back to our financial markets.
  This, however, only solves the immediate crisis. We have a longer 
term economic problem in this country. There is nothing more important 
to our economy than having a comprehensive energy plan for the United 
States. Renewable energy is only part of that comprehensive energy plan 
for the United States though.
  Within the bill we have before us, there are strong incentives for 
all types of clean energy, including solar power, geothermal, wind, and 
biofuels. If somebody wants to add solar power panels to their home, 
there are currently some incentives in today's law, but those 
incentives are not adequate. We encourage more and more people to put 
solar power into their own homes so they can actually help solve the 
energy problems we have in this country in their own home.
  I think it is important that the Senate say to the House of 
Representatives, let's pass this bill in a strong bipartisan fashion. 
This is so the House of Representatives will take up this bill, pass 
it, and send it to the President where he can sign this bipartisan 
piece of legislation into law.
  I strongly believe that we need a comprehensive energy plan for the 
United States of America that includes an all-of-the-above approach. 
This would include alternative green energies, drilling for more oil 
and natural gas, more clean coal energy, and clean nuclear energy, all 
of which include

[[Page 20073]]

more conservation for the United States. We need all of this if we are 
to stop sending $700 billion overseas. A lot of that money is going to 
countries who do not like us. Some is even going to fund terrorist 
organizations that want to do harm to the United States of America.
  It is critical that we have a comprehensive energy plan. Let's at 
least do the renewable energy part of the energy plan, today. I want to 
thank all who have worked so hard on this. On the solar part of this 
bill alone, it is estimated that 400,000 jobs could become permanent in 
the United States between now and the year 2016. These people would be 
building solar panels for houses, for businesses, for powerplants and 
the like. Over 1 million jobs will be produced in the building of a 
powerplant.
  This is a good bill for our economy. It is a good bill for the power 
generation of the United States of America, and it is a good bill for 
our environment.
  In many ways, this is a very exciting bill. Right now, unfortunately, 
it is being overshadowed by what is happening in our financial markets. 
But that does not mean this bill is not important; it is more important 
than ever. I encourage all of our Senators to vote for it, and then the 
message needs to go to the House of Representatives: Let's not delay on 
this bill; let's get this bill signed because this is the last week of 
business we have this year. Let's get it passed in the House and sent 
to the President so that he can sign this bill into law and we can 
start getting these jobs now.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent that the time be equally divided between both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this afternoon we will vote on energy tax 
extenders or tax incentives for renewable energy. I wanted to make a 
comment about the importance of this legislation. I believe this will 
be our tenth vote to try to extend the tax incentives for renewable 
energy. It has been previously blocked nine times, which is almost 
unbelievable to me.
  But at a time when we face a very severe energy problem in this 
country, and when we need to incentivize and begin developing 
additional renewable sources of energy to make us less dependant on 
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, Venezuela, Iraq, at a time when we need to be 
less dependent and produce other kinds of energy, we have been blocked 
in extending these energy tax credits. It makes no sense at all to me.
  If you are going to address the energy problem in this country, we 
need to do a lot of things. We need to conserve more. Yes, we need to 
drill more, and we need much greater energy efficiency. We need to do a 
whole lot of things, but this country needs to move ahead with respect 
to renewable energy on a much more aggressive path.
  A substantial amount of energy comes every day from the Sun, and we 
use precious little of it. A substantial amount of energy is available 
from the wind, and we use too little of it.
  How does this compare to other energy resources? Now, here is what we 
have done in the past for those who look for oil and gas. In 1916 this 
country said: If you are searching for oil and gas, we are going to 
give you a big fat set of tax breaks, because we want you to find oil 
and gas. That has existed for nearly 100 years, those tax incentives 
for those who search for oil and gas. Contrast that with what we have 
done for those who want to proceed with renewable energy such as wind 
and solar.
  In 1992, we put in place the production tax credit. These were short-
term and rather shallow tax incentives. They have been extended short 
term five times. They have been allowed to expire three times. We have 
seen projects to put up new wind turbines and new solar projects put on 
the shelf because these tax incentives have been in a start-stop, 
stutter step approach. It makes no sense. It is a pathetic, anemic 
response.
  This country should be saying: Here is where we are headed for the 
next decade. For the next decade you can count on this. We are going to 
develop wind resources and solar energy all across the country that 
will make us less dependent on Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and others. That 
is what this country should do.
  We have had great difficulty getting a 1-year extension from these 
production tax credit for wind energy, as an example until December 31 
next year. I am going to celebrate today, if we pass this legislation. 
I believe we will. It is an achievement, but it is not a giant step 
forward. It is a baby step in the right direction because we have been 
blocked nine times by the minority from passing this legislation during 
this Congress. My hope is that today, finally, we will get it done and 
get this finally sent back to the House and to the President for 
signature.
  We have had a lot of time on the floor of the Senate in recent weeks, 
a lot of wringing of hands, mopping of brows and gnashing of teeth 
about energy. This country's economy runs on energy. Sixty-five percent 
of the oil we use comes from overseas. We are unbelievably dependent on 
foreign sources of energy. How do we overcome that dependence to make 
us less vulnerable? We can do that by producing more here, which means 
drilling and by substantial amounts of conservation. We are prodigious 
users of energy, and we waste a lot. So while we produce more, we need 
to conserve more too. In everything we use every single day, from the 
time we turn the light switch on in the morning, to all of our 
appliances like refrigerators, air-conditioners, dishwashers, and more, 
we must make them more efficient. Many of these machines are more 
efficient now than they were in terms of all appliances. But we can 
impose even greater standards and create greater efficiency. So 
production, conservation, and efficiency--all are elements of an 
important national energy program.
  I believe most important is the decision to pursue renewable energy. 
We do it with ethanol by taking alcohol from corn and extending our 
energy supply. We do it with biodiesel too. We do it with a range of 
areas. Especially in the area of biomass, wind, solar, and geothermal 
energy, there is such great potential. We have had so much difficulty 
providing certainty about where America is going to head with renewable 
energy.
  I have introduced legislation saying we ought to do this for a full 
decade. We ought to say to the world, to investors and businessmen and 
women: Here is where America is headed. You can count on it. We will 
produce a lot of energy from renewable sources. We will maximize the 
opportunity to receive energy from the Sun. We have some projects that 
are interesting, but we have fallen far behind on solar energy. We are 
not anywhere near where we ought to be in producing solar energy. We 
are not near where we can be in producing energy from the wind. We have 
unbelievable turbines now that are much more powerful. They can take 
energy from the wind and use that energy to extend America's energy 
supply.
  This is a very important vote, but it is only a small step forward in 
the right direction. It needs to be followed by a much larger step that 
tells the world where America is going. Yes, we will drill, conserve, 
all those things, but this country needs to decide that we want 
substantial amounts of additional renewable energy to make this economy 
less dependent on Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Venezuela. They 
provide us energy that comes from off our shores. Using more renewable 
energy and using this energy wisely are very important elements to 
sustain our country's economic strength and opportunity in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today I will vote for the renewable 
energy tax legislation, Baucus-Grassley Amendment No. 5633, included in 
the

[[Page 20074]]

tax extenders package because it is the best balanced approach to 
encourage renewable and alternative forms of clean energy that the 
Senate has had a chance to consider. I especially like the fact that, 
after many years, Congress is finally encouraging solar power in a 
serious way.
  But the proposal would be much better if it would use the subsidy 
money designated for wind power instead for a dramatic new Federal 
investment in clean energy research and development.
  This legislation adds nearly $5 billion to the $11.5 billion in 
Federal taxpayer dollars that are already committed to subsidize wind 
power over the next 10 years. This means that Congress will be spending 
two-thirds as much over the next 10 years to subsidize wind turbines as 
it did--in today's dollars--on the Manhattan Project to build the atom 
bomb. Wind power is a proven technology, useful in some places for 
clean electricity, but this disproportionate allocation of tax dollars 
is unwise because:
  Wind turbines produce 1 percent of America's electricity.
  There is only one wind farm in the southeastern United States because 
the wind doesn't blow hard enough in that part of the country.
  There is almost nowhere in the U.S. where consumers can rely mainly 
on wind power without also needing coal, nuclear or gas--or maybe solar 
thermal--plants.
  Wind power provides 2.7 percent of U.S. carbon-free electricity, 
which helps deal with climate change, but nuclear power provides 69 
percent of U.S. carbon-free electricity.
  Under existing law--without the new subsidies in this energy tax 
legislation--beginning in 2010 the largest Federal taxpayer subsidy for 
producing electricity would go to wind.
  Per kilowatt hour, Federal subsidies for wind in 2007 were: 53 times 
the subsidy for electricity made from coal; 15 times the subsidy for 
nuclear power; and 27 times the subsidy for all other forms of renewal 
electricity.
  If the Federal Government were to subsidize each kilowatt hour that 
nuclear power produces at the same rate it now subsidizes wind power, 
the cost to taxpayers for the nuclear subsidy over the next 10 years 
would be $289 billion.
  On average, for every dollar Texas utilities pay wind developers, the 
Federal taxpayer pays another 69 cents.
  Some say that by 2030 wind could generate 20 percent of America's 
electricity. Over 10 years the Federal tax subsidy for this much wind 
power would be enough to give 55 million Americans $3,000 to help buy 
an electric plug-in car or truck.
  Wind turbines are a dramatic disruption to the landscape. A typical 
1.5 megawatt wind turbine is as tall as a 40-story building. Its blades 
reach from 10 yard line to 10 yard line on a football field, and its 
blinking lights are visible for up to 20 miles.
  I suspect the value of my vacant lot on Nantucket Island will go up 
when values go down on the other side of the island where a wind farm 
is being built.
  Wind power is useful but not a true alternative energy because it 
blows only when it wants to--turbines operate, on average, 34 percent 
of the time--and can't be stored for baseload power, the kind our jobs 
and homes depend on, or for peaking power, the kind utilities buy in 
the late afternoon when every home appliance is on. When cost of 
transmission from remote locations is added, wind power can become very 
expensive.
  Instead of spending another $5 billion to subsidize a proven 
technology, wouldn't it be wiser to make a dramatic new Federal 
investment in energy research and development--a series of mini-
Manhattan Projects, for example--to: Make electric cars and trucks 
commonplace, make solar power cost competitive, capture and store 
carbon from coal-burning power p1ants, reprocess and store nuclear 
waste, make advanced biofuels from crops we don't eat, encourage green 
buildings, and provide energy from fusion.
  According to MIT president Susan Hockfield, Federal funding for 
energy research has ``dwindled to irrelevance''--$2.4 to $3.4 billion a 
year--less than half the R&D budget of America's largest pharmaceutical 
company.
  Use the wind subsidy money for new Manhattan projects, and use wind 
turbines where the wind blows and where transmission line costs make 
sense--and where both don't spoil the natural beauty of the great 
American outdoors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 5634

  (Purpose: To provide alternative minimum tax relief, and for other 
                               purposes)

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily set aside so I may call up amendment No. 5634.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5634.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. CONRAD. What is the time on this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One hour equally divided.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have offered this amendment to prevent 
the alternative minimum tax from hitting 26 million taxpayers in 2008. 
My amendment is fully paid for. That is how we should provide 
alternative minimum tax relief.
  We need to wake up around here. We are facing a fiscal crisis, in 
part because of the massive deficits and debt we have run up as a 
Nation that has helped propel this bubble. Our markets are in turmoil. 
The Bush administration is now proposing to spend hundreds of billions 
of taxpayer dollars to stabilize Wall Street. We simply cannot continue 
to pile debt on top of debt. We have to begin to send a signal that the 
United States is going to start paying its bills. We are running 
massive budget deficits, massive trade deficits. The debt of the 
country has mushroomed.
  In one fell swoop, the administration is proposing adding $700 
billion more. That is on top of the $100 billion dedicated to Fannie 
Mae, the $100 billion dedicated to Freddie Mac, and the $85 billion 
dedicated to AIG. Let's add that up. That is nearly a trillion dollars. 
Let's add the $30 billion for Bear Sterns. We are over a trillion 
dollars.
  Let's think very carefully about what is happening. Yesterday, the 
Washington Post reported the dollar declined in value against the euro 
by more than 2 percent in a single day. I ask people who are watching 
and listening to think very carefully now about how these events are 
connected. The dollar has gone down in value sharply. Already in the 
last 6 years it has gone down about 40 percent against the Euro. 
Yesterday, in one day, it went down 2 percent. In one day, the stock 
market went down almost 400 points. In one day, the price of oil went 
up by a record amount for a single-day increase. These events are all 
connected. We have to connect the dots. The dollar goes down in value, 
oil sells in dollar terms. That puts upward pressure on oil prices.
  Of course, as people see that we are headed toward some kind of 
economic weakness, they look for safe havens. One place to look is 
commodities. A key reason people are losing confidence in the dollar is 
the mushrooming debt. To add in just a matter of days almost a trillion 
dollars to a debt that already stands at $9.6 trillion has an effect on 
people's confidence in the ability of the United States to repay. That 
means they are going to insist on higher interest rates in order to 
continue to extend us credit.
  As we run up these massive deficits and debt, where do we get the 
money to pay for this? We get it by borrowing, and increasingly we have 
been getting it from borrowing from other countries. We cannot afford 
to continue on this course of not paying for things.
  We can look back now and see the results of these irresponsible 
fiscal policies. In the last eight years, we have seen the five highest 
deficits ever recorded, with the highest of those now

[[Page 20075]]

projected to come in 2009. The 2009 estimate of the deficit does not 
include the still unknown cost of the Federal intervention to help the 
financial markets. But our budget situation is actually even worse. The 
debt is going up much more rapidly than the reported deficit. For 
example, the increase in the debt in 2008 will be far greater than the 
estimated $407 billion deficit. That is because the general fund of the 
United States is taking the surpluses from Social Security and Medicare 
and using those funds to pay other bills. Let me repeat that: The debt 
increase in 2008 will not be the $407 billion advertised deficit. The 
increase in the debt will be $647 billion. For next year, the deficit 
is estimated to go up $438 billion. The debt will go up by more than 
$800 billion. And all that is before we include those bailouts. We 
could easily see the debt of the country go up a trillion dollars next 
year. The debt, as we sit here today, is $9.6 trillion. That is the 
gross debt of the United States.
  This President has been building a wall of debt: $5.8 trillion at the 
end of his first year; now they want to increase the debt ceiling to 
over $11 trillion. This chart shows $10.4 trillion in 2009. That has 
now been erased because what they are proposing to do is increase the 
debt ceiling to over $11 trillion, nearly a doubling of the debt in 
that short period of time.
  Here is what the New York Times headline from this weekend said: 
``Administration Is Seeking $700 billion for Wall St.; Bailout Could 
Set Record.'' That could mean hundreds of billions of dollars of debt 
added to the wall of debt we already face. That is an unsustainable 
circumstance. It is a key reason why the dollar went down 2 percent in 
value in one day.
  One of the great risks that is being run by this fiscal policy is the 
risk of a sharp downward break in the value of the dollar. If that were 
to occur, we would be faced with a series of unpleasant alternatives. 
One would be a sharp cut in spending by the United States. A second 
possibility would be a dramatic increase in taxes. A third would be a 
substantial increase in interest rates to attract additional capital to 
float this boat.
  I hope people are listening. I know this is hard to fully comprehend 
because economic issues are complex. But they are related. They are 
tied together. The fact that we have dramatically increased the debt 
and deficit has an impact on the value of our dollar. When we flood the 
world with dollars, the value of those dollars goes down. When those 
dollars go down in value, that puts us in a position of having to find 
some way to attract additional dollars. One way open to us is to 
increase the rent we pay for those dollars we call interest. If we had 
to dramatically increase the interest rate to attract dollars to be 
able to float this enterprise, that would have an adverse effect on 
economic growth and economic activity.
  So all of these things are connected. They are related, and they 
matter. We are already seeing the dollar fall further in response to 
the prospect of billions of dollars of additional debt being piled on.
  The Washington Post article I showed earlier said ``Currency's Dive 
Points to Further Pain.'' ``Currency's Dive Points to Further Pain''--
again, a 2-percent reduction in the value of our currency in a single 
day. This is after the dollar has already lost about 40 percent of its 
value against the euro since 2002.
  I am not the only one who believes we have to start paying for 
things. Earlier this month, the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve 
reiterated his opposition to deficit-financed tax cuts. This is what 
Alan Greenspan said on Bloomberg Television:

       [U]nless [tax cuts are] paid for on the so-called pay-go, 
     I'm not in favor of it. I'm not in favor of financing tax 
     cuts with borrowed money.

  To my colleagues who say: Well, it is the people's money so let's 
give it back to them in a tax cut, what people are we talking about 
here? It is the people's money, so we give it back to them. The problem 
is, the people's Government does not have any money. The people's 
Government is out of money. It is borrowing money, and increasingly it 
is borrowing from foreign entities. So when people say: We ought to 
give the people's money back to them, it is a little late. We already 
did that. We did that, and much more. We went and borrowed money to 
give it to them.
  Now, who is going to get stuck with the tab? It is going to be the 
American taxpayer. Because you can only continue to stack up debt for 
so long. At some point the chickens come home to roost. That is why I 
support a fully paid-for alternative minimum tax relief amendment. This 
alternative minimum tax relief provides tax relief in the first year 
costing $76 billion, but it is paid for over the next 10 years.
  I remind my colleagues that pay-go does not require that these bills 
be paid for immediately. It requires the legislation be paid for over 6 
and 11 years. Given the economic downturn and turmoil we now confront, 
I would not call for paying for AMT relief right now. But we can 
provide offsets over time to cover the cost. That would be the 
responsible thing to do, and it would send a signal to the financial 
markets that we are serious about putting our fiscal house back in 
order.
  Some have argued we should not be raising taxes to pay for 
alternative minimum tax relief. We are not talking about raising taxes. 
We are talking about closing tax loopholes and making hedge fund 
managers and oil companies pay their fair share.
  Here is a list of the offsets or the pay-fors included in my 
amendment.
  One, ending deferral of offshore compensation by hedge fund managers 
trying to evade current taxation. Two, delaying implementation of a new 
worldwide interest allocation provision designed to benefit some 
multinational corporations. Three, correcting underpayment of royalties 
for oil and gas production on federal land in the Outer Continental 
Shelf. Four, codifying economic substance--prohibiting transactions 
with no economic rationale, done solely to evade taxes.
  Does anyone oppose closing these loopholes? Does anyone oppose these 
offsets, these means of paying for what is needed? Because certainly 
alternative minimum tax relief is needed. Otherwise, 26 million people 
are going to get hit by the alternative minimum tax.
  It is important to recognize these annual alternative minimum tax 
fixes, as costly as they are, conceal the much longer and larger long-
term cost of fixing this problem. The cost to reform the alternative 
minimum tax over the next 10 years is a staggering $1.6 trillion. Let 
me repeat that. To fix the alternative minimum tax over the next 10 
years would cost $1.6 trillion.
  So if we continue to pass alternative minimum tax patches that are 
not offset, that is the real amount, as shown on this chart, we are 
going to be adding to the Nation's debt. Over the summer, I asked the 
Congressional Budget Office to examine the impact on our budget and 
economy from continuing to pass these unoffset tax cuts. CBO found that 
the debt absolutely explodes if we continue with unoffset alternative 
minimum tax reform and unoffset extension of the President's tax cuts--
rising to 602 percent of the gross domestic product by 2082.
  Let me repeat that. This is what the Congressional Budget Office has 
told us will happen if we continue on this course. As shown on this 
chart, this is the debt if we proceed with the current policies. That 
is the green line. Now, this is the debt that will accrue if we 
continue to pass alternative minimum tax reform unpaid for. That is the 
black line. Finally, the red line is what happens to the debt with 
unoffset alternative minimum tax reform and extension of the Bush tax 
cuts. In that case, the result is the debt of the country goes to 600 
percent of gross domestic product. That is five times the record 
amount. That is five times the record amount of debt to gross domestic 
product in our Nation's history.
  What is the implication of such an explosion of debt? What would it 
mean? I asked the Congressional Budget Office to tell me what would 
happen if we fail to pay for alternative minimum tax reform and the 
Bush tax cuts. What would happen to economic growth? Here is what they 
concluded. As shown

[[Page 20076]]

on this chart, the black line is the economic loss from not paying for 
alternative minimum tax reform. You can see, it is very dramatic, the 
drop in GNP per person. Here is what happens to economic loss from not 
offsetting the alternative minimum tax reform and the extension of the 
Bush tax cuts. CBO projects that, over time, it would reduce American 
living standards by 50 percent.
  It is because the debt operates as a gigantic drag on the economic 
growth of the country. How is that possible? Well, very simply, as I 
described earlier, if you keep adding to the debt, you have to finance 
it. How do you finance it? You borrow it. Increasingly, we borrow from 
abroad. That undermines the value of the dollar. That puts upward 
pressure on interest rates. Rising interest rates stifle economic 
growth. Again, that is not just my view. Here is what the Congressional 
Budget Office said in a letter to me on July 17 of this year concerning 
their estimates:

       Despite the substantial economic costs generated by 
     deficits in that model, such estimates may significantly 
     understate the potential loss to economic growth from 
     financing the tax changes with deficits . . . In reality, the 
     economic effects of rapidly growing debt would probably be 
     much more disorderly and could occur well before the time 
     frame indicated in the scenario.

  Is anyone listening to what our own advisers are telling us? Deficit 
financing of tax cuts hurts long-term economic growth, and the reaction 
could be disorderly changes in the markets well before the models 
suggest. I believe that, in part, that is what we are seeing today: a 
sharp drop in equity values, a sharp drop in the value of the dollar, 
and all the while we see a massive increase in our deficits and debt.
  As shown on this chart, this is the long-term budget scenario of the 
Congressional Budget Office. This is where we are to this point. This 
is where we are headed without fundamental changes. If we keep patching 
the alternative minimum tax without paying for it, if we extend the 
Bush tax cuts without paying for them, there is going to be, according 
to those who advise us, a sharp reduction in economic growth, a sharp 
reduction in the economic strength of our country.
  We have to start somewhere. I propose we start today by paying for 
the alternative minimum tax relief that is needed. We could do it 
today. We could open a new chapter. We could get serious about the 
long-term economic prospects of our country. The alternative is to stay 
on the current course, keep running up the debt, keep running the risk 
of a sharp break in the value of the dollar, keep running the risk of a 
sharp break in the economic strength of our country.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Utah.


                           Amendment No. 5633

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from North 
Dakota. He is diligent. He means well. And I care for him a great deal. 
He has an impossible job, in my opinion. One reason he does is because 
one side thinks the only way to solve our problems is to increase 
taxes. Our side believes the only way to solve our problems is to 
reduce spending. We all know the only way you can do that and be 
significant is to take on some of the entitlement problems that exist, 
and that causes even more of an explosion. But I respect him very much 
for the fight he wages all the time.
  I rise today to express my support for the Baucus-Grassley substitute 
and perfecting amendments to the tax extenders bill before us today. 
These amendments may sound a bit confusing, so I will try to clarify 
briefly what they do.
  The Baucus-Grassley substitute amendment is a bipartisan compromise 
on the soon-to-be expired tax provisions dealing with energy 
production, alternatives, and conservation. This important group of tax 
incentives enjoys a great deal of support from Members on both sides.
  Unfortunately, the passage of these energy extender provisions has 
been held up over discussions about energy policy in general, and more 
particularly, over the question of whether and how to offset the lost 
revenue.
  The Baucus-Grassley perfecting amendment is also a bipartisan 
compromise, but this amendment features the retroactive extension of 
important tax provisions that expired at the end of last year, as well 
as extending the so-called alternative minimum tax patch for 2008, and 
a package of disaster relief tax provisions.
  This long-delayed group of provisions also enjoys broad support among 
Senators, but it too has been held up by the question of how or if to 
pay for the lost revenue.
  I want to first congratulate those of my colleagues whose hard work 
and flexibility have made these compromises possible. Getting to this 
point where we can hopefully pass this tax extenders bill today is a 
big achievement, and one that should not be overshadowed by the 
necessities of dealing with other urgent legislative business this 
week.
  The chairman and the ranking Republican of the Finance Committee, 
Senators Baucus and Grassley, along with the majority leader and the 
republican leader, deserve all of our thanks for guiding us to this 
compromise.
  As with all compromises, this one is completely satisfactory to no 
one. My position all year long on the offset question, along with that 
of most of my Republican colleagues, can be summed up in two sentences. 
First, it is wrong to raise taxes on one group of Americans in order to 
prevent another group of Americans from suffering a tax increase. 
Second, it is wrong to raise taxes on a permanent basis in order to pay 
for the temporary extension of expired or expiring tax provisions.
  The other side has put forward the position that, in the name of 
fiscal responsibility, we should not allow the budget deficit to grow 
higher as a result of extending current law tax provisions. I respect 
this position, and as someone who has long been concerned with this 
Nation's fiscal health, I also do not want to see the deficit climb.
  However, the rate of Federal spending for the past several years has 
grown alarmingly high. According to the CBO's latest baseline budget 
projection, the deficit is estimated to explode from last year's $161 
billion to $431 billion by 2010. So, yes, it is obvious that we have a 
deficit problem. However, over this same 3-year period, annual Federal 
revenues are projected to increase by $313 billion from fiscal year 
2007 levels. This is an increase of more than 12 percent.
  Over that same period, however, the amount of annual Federal spending 
is projected to climb by $583 billion. This is an increase of more than 
21 percent. Therefore, it seems obvious that we do not have a problem 
with revenues. We have a problem with spending growing much faster than 
revenues are growing.
  It seems to me that the answer to the offset question is not to raise 
taxes but to cut spending growth. And yet after months of impasse, we 
made no progress in getting the other side to line up for spending 
restraint instead of tax increases.
  However, the leadership on both sides, along with the two leaders of 
the Finance Committee, have found a way to move us forward in a manner 
acceptable to both sides.
  The energy extenders amendment is fully offset, as has been insisted 
upon by the Democrats. However, it is true that much of this amendment 
is comprised of expansions of current policy and not strictly 
extensions of current law. Therefore, some offsets are acceptable. I 
wish they were offsets in the form of spending cuts, but my voice is in 
the minority on this desire.
  Moreover, the tax increases in the energy amendment have been 
moderated from earlier versions. Instead of a full repeal of the 
deduction for the domestic production of oil and gas, the amendment 
freezes the current deduction at 6 percent. And, instead of an 
obnoxious and unprecedented new Federal severance tax on oil drilled in 
the Gulf of Mexico, the amendment includes a small set of offsets that 
are relatively acceptable in light of the positive provisions included 
in the package.
  In the AMT and extenders amendment, the other side has conceded that

[[Page 20077]]

it need not be fully offset. This amendment does include a large tax 
offset dealing with offshore deferred compensation. I am not fully 
convinced that current law is in need of reform in this area. However, 
again the benefit to our economy and to taxpayers of having the expired 
provisions extended on a retroactive basis justifies this compromise.
  We are obviously in a time of great economic peril. While the size of 
this combined tax extenders package might pale in comparison with the 
larger number of dollars involved with legislation we are considering 
this week to ensure the liquidity of our financial markets, we should 
not underestimate the importance of these tax provisions to our 
economy.
  We must not subject another 23 million American families to the 
cruelties of the alternative minimum tax. What a nasty and unfair 
surprise to these unsuspecting households we would be leaving at their 
doorsteps absent this bill. Because the AMT patch will save these 
taxpayers almost $62 billion, in just one year, not passing the AMT 
patch would go a long way toward reversing the benefits of this year's 
economic stimulus tax rebates.
  Let me mention two other vital provisions that are extended in this 
package, among many important ones.
  First is the provision to extend the exemption of active financing. I 
know this sounds confusing, but it is critically important to keeping 
America's financial services firms competitive with their overseas 
counterparts.
  The Internal Revenue Code imposes worldwide taxation on its citizens 
and domestic corporations. Many of our trading partner nations do not 
impose this kind of taxation on their home-based companies. Without the 
exemption for active financing income, which expires at the end of this 
year, our firms will have a significant disadvantage in competing with 
companies based in these other nations.
  The second, and I believe, the most important, is the research 
credit, which expired at the end of last year. Research and development 
is the lifeblood of American innovation. This is an area where our 
Nation has clearly held the lead for decades.
  However, we are at serious risk of losing this edge to other 
countries. No longer is the U.S. the only place to find talented 
scientists and other researchers. No longer does the U.S. have the only 
world class research facilities. And certainly, no longer do we have 
the only tax incentives for research in the world. Many other 
countries, each of which would love to take our lead away, are vying 
for this research.
  We simply cannot afford to allow this credit to lose its incentive 
value and thus allow research to escape our shores. I fear it is 
already happening, but passing this bill is the first step in fighting 
to keep this indispensable segment.
  This is obviously a historic week in a monumental year. Hugely 
important questions with tremendous ramifications lie before the 
Congress and before the American people and must be decided in the next 
few days and weeks.
  The issue at hand today might be overshadowed by other matters, but 
is nevertheless a vital one. We must pass this tax extenders and energy 
incentives bill, and I hope the House can get it done this week as 
well. Let us put this part of our financial house in order today.
  Then, I hope and pray we as a Congress can make the right decisions 
in solving our financial and liquidity crisis, and that the people of 
America choose wisely in the elections that are just a few weeks away.
  As a Nation and as a Congress, we have a lot of work ahead of us to 
bolster the confidence of the people. We need health care reform and we 
need a tax system that helps us compete in the world, instead of 
leaving us at a disadvantage.
  I personally compliment the distinguished Senator from Montana and 
the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Senators Baucus and Grassley, for 
the work they have done, and, of course, others who have participated 
in this. Let's build on this work as we move forward.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes from the time in 
opposition to the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the series of votes 
we are going to be having on the extenders package and to thank my 
Chairman, Senator Baucus, for his leadership on this legislation 
because this is important legislation my colleagues are going to be 
voting on in a short period of time.
  Senator Baucus has been diligent in working with Senator Grassley on 
various provisions that I believe are good for Washington State and for 
the country--specifically, the R&D tax credit and the continuation of 
that credit for 2 years. I thank Senator Baucus and Senator Hatch, who 
worked out a more robust tax credit for the future. We also are 
extending the college expense deduction; a continuation of that at 
$4,000. Many parents are struggling with many financial obligations, 
and college education costs that are continuing to rise. This 
legislation makes sure they can deduct some of these expenses and helps 
out those taxpayers.
  For us in Washington State, it also is critically important we be 
able to continue to deduct sales tax from our Federal income tax 
obligations. It was about 22 years ago that Congress took away this 
opportunity for Washingtonians to be treated fairly, just like other 
States in the Union, to be able to deduct sales tax. We recently 
reestablished this policy, and this bill continues it for another 2 
years, so that we are able to deduct what obligations we pay to the 
State of Washington from our Federal income tax obligation. This is 
stimulus to us in Washington State, and it is about tax fairness. We 
are glad that, for 2 more years, Washington residents will be able to 
either take a standard deduction or itemize their deductions and claim 
these taxes against their Federal tax obligation.
  I remind my colleagues, too, about the importance of the energy 
provisions we are about to vote on. We are making a significant change 
in energy policy by promoting clean energy solutions for our country. 
In fact, were we to look at the 2005 bill we passed, which had many 
similar tax provisions in it related to energy production, it was 
probably two-thirds tilted toward fossil fuel and one-third for green 
energy. This bill turns that equation on its head; it is two-thirds for 
green energy solutions and one-third for fossil fuel. That heads us in 
the right direction as a Congress and as a country, it is where we 
should put our priorities.
  This legislation unleashes the ability for us to focus on solar power 
in America. It unleashes the ability of solar power by giving it an 8-
year tax credit horizon, the same we are giving to fuel cell 
technology. Concentrating solar power technology is a new endeavor that 
holds great promise for us in America and particularly in the 
Southwest. We think that over 400,000 jobs could be created in the next 
8 years thanks to this technology, and those are jobs right here in the 
United States. That gives the United States the ability to produce 
enough power for probably over 7 million American households. It is 
also a $232 billion investment that we expect to see into our economy 
coming from these investment in solar energy. We are truly unleashing 
that power and producing what will be emission-free fuel for our homes 
and businesses.
  For plug-in electric cars, this bill provides up to a $7,500 tax 
credit so an American citizen will be able to get a plug-in car and use 
that to drive down their cost of transportation. If you think about it, 
instead of spending $4 a gallon for gasoline, with a plug-in vehicle, 
your cost per gallon would probably be only about a dollar. That would 
be significant savings for the American consumer.
  Third, we are including, for the first time in the Tax Code, faster 
depreciation for what are called smart meters. This technology is going 
to help us as consumers understand the power we

[[Page 20078]]

are using and how we can manage that usage to reduce our energy costs. 
Tom Friedman has done a good job of evangelizing this. He believes this 
is where IT meets ET--where Internet technology meets energy 
technology. The fact is that we can build a smart electricity grid that 
understands what consumers are using and empowers those consumers to 
help drive down their costs. Once we get these meters installed 
throughout the country we will begin to realize energy savings just by 
moving power more efficiently around the electricity grids. We can save 
10 percent on what power we are using today by just consuming it in a 
more efficient fashion.
  This provision will help with the deployment of smart meters and 
smart grid technology that will help us move forward.
  When we think about this platform of distributed generation, smart 
grid technology, the advent of efficiencies, we can see how we can 
build a national smart grid that will help us immensely because we know 
we are going to have an increase in demand, we know we want to reduce 
carbon emissions, we know there are intermittent sources of power such 
as we are talking about with wind and solar that we can work in 
cooperation with our other power sources, and we know that substituting 
electricity for oil can make a major transition for us in getting off 
our dependence on foreign oil.
  All of these are improvements to that electricity grid. It is like 
taking our current two-lane dirt road highway and turning it into a 
superhighway of a smart electricity grid that can empower us in making 
this transition.
  I am very happy that the accelerated depreciation provision made it 
into the legislation. I thank Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley for 
making that part of the tax incentives we are going to pass here today.
  Lastly, there are over $10,000 in tax breaks to American consumers to 
try to help them lower their energy costs into the future. I know from 
the Presiding Officer that in the Northeast part of our country, a lot 
of people have suffered under the high cost of home heating fuel. This 
legislation helps them with tax breaks on wood-burning stoves so they 
can install the latest technology to turn wood pellets into a better, 
more efficient source of fuel and help drive down the demand on home 
heating oil. Hopefully this can help reduce the cost to many of the 
Northeast residents who are still using oil as their primary heating 
source.
  The $10,000 in tax breaks, as I said, for items such as plug-in 
automobiles, wood stoves, solar panels on the homes, small wind farms, 
and a variety of things are going to help the American consumer reduce 
the burden they are now facing from higher energy costs.
  We are taking this direction and moving closer to what we think the 
United States can be--a world leader in green technology. We are 
creating the platform and putting in place the right incentives in this 
legislation that will move our country away from its dependence on 
fossil fuel and on to the clean energy technologies that will make the 
United States a world energy leader.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                Amendment No. 5635 to Amendment No. 5633

(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain 
              expiring provisions, and for other purposes)

  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for himself, Mr. 
     Grassley, and Mr. Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 5635 
     to amendment No. 5633.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, my thanks to the chairman.
  First, I wish to thank a number of individuals and institutions.
  First and foremost, I thank Senator Kennedy. Senator Kennedy is my 
long-time partner and friend in our work on parity and other mental 
health issues. Obviously, he cannot be here today, but he is fully 
aware of what we are doing. I know he is very pleased with what we are 
doing and thrilled that we have found the offset for our bill, the bill 
that has been accepted by the House.
  The question is whether our bill with the offset or our bill with a 
different offset becomes law. There should be no doubt that we will now 
get parity of treatment for a large number of Americans suffering from 
mental illness.
  My further thanks go to Senator Enzi. I could not have asked for a 
better colleague to help work on this issue of mental health parity.
  Senator Dodd, my long-time friend, has done an admirable job standing 
in for Senator Kennedy, not to mention his own work on mental health 
issues.
  Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley: Simply put, we could not be 
here without you.
  Leaders Reid and McConnell: I cannot say enough about the fantastic 
assistance the leaders have provided and they should certainly share 
with us the optimism that comes from this bill.
  Members of the House of Representatives Kennedy and Ramstad, the 
chairmen and members of the committees of jurisdiction and the 
leadership in the House; our superb coalition outside the Senate and 
House. Mental health groups, insurance companies, and business 
organizations banded together and stayed together to ensure a broadly 
supported bill.
  It might shock some, but I read the long list of those who banded 
together. And yes, you will see that this bill is supported by 
businesses--by big businesses--by those who pay for the large numbers 
of people who are covered by insurance and who are going to be 
guaranteeing parity of treatment under this bill. Finally, my dear 
friend Paul Wellstone. He was always the one who pushed and prodded me 
to move quicker and faster. I know he is watching us today and is 
extremely proud of what we have accomplished.
  Let me take a couple of minutes to talk about the historic mental 
health parity compromise before the Senate.
  Twelve years have passed since the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 
became law. The compromise is the product of 3-plus years of continuous 
work and thousands of hours of labor. Rather than say just thousands, I 
will say a thousand hours at a minimum. For those 3-plus years I would 
walk into my office from time to time and I would see my conference 
room occupied by 30 or 40 people. Whenever that conference room was 
full, I knew that the member of my staff who handles mental health 
parity, Edward Hild, who is sitting at my right hand today, was among 
them. He was working with them to see what they could agree on and to 
see which problems could be solved. Joined with him was Senator 
Kennedy's aide, Connie Garner. I thank the two of them especially. 
Without them we could not have completed this bill. They worked and 
worked in order to get all sides to agree. And now we have what many 
have waited for a long time. My thanks to Ed Hild, and Connie Garner, 
who works for Senator Kennedy.
  What does this bill do? It provides mental health parity for about 
113 million Americans who work for employers with 50 employees or more. 
It ensures that 98 percent of the businesses that provide a mental 
health benefit do so in a manner that is no more restrictive than the 
coverage of medical and surgical benefits.
  It ensures that health plans do not place more restrictive conditions 
on mental health coverage than on medical and surgical coverage; parity 
for financial requirements, such as deductibles, copayments, and annual

[[Page 20079]]

and lifetime limits; parity for treatment limitations, and the number 
of covered hospital days and visits.
  It provides an out-of-network parity for mental health coverage if a 
plan provides out-of-network coverage for medical and surgical 
benefits.
  It provides a small employer exemption for companies with fewer than 
50 employers and provides a cost exemption to all covered employers.
  Simply put, our legislation will ensure that individuals with a 
mental illness have parity between mental health coverage and medical 
and surgical coverage. No longer will people with mental illness have 
their mental health coverage treated differently than their coverage 
for other illnesses. That means there will be parity between the 
coverage of mental illness and other medical conditions such as cancer, 
heart disease, and diabetes.
  No longer will people be treated differently only because they suffer 
from a mental illness. And that means 113 million people in group 
health policy plans will benefit from our bill.
  We have worked with the mental health community and business and 
insurance groups to carefully craft a compromise that all members of 
the coalition support.
  I wish to take a minute to talk about what we are doing and what we 
are not doing. I have done that in all of my remarks, talking about 
what we are doing and what we are not doing.
  Mr. President, I say to everyone here, I do believe that if Senator 
Kennedy had his way, he would be standing over there where his chair is 
and he would be speaking as long as I speak or maybe longer. He and I 
would be discussing how difficult it has been to get this very basic 
American insurance coverage for the mentally ill.
  Parity means fairness. We have been unfair to the mentally ill since 
we started medical insurance coverage for people with illnesses. 
Somehow we got off the track. We said, of course, we will treat 
everything that has to do with the heart, but, for instance, we won't 
do anything having to do with illnesses that affect the brain. Perhaps, 
it was because we didn't know that illnesses such as schizophrenia were 
diseases of the brain. We started talking about them as if they were 
something else. So we began saying they don't get the kind of coverage 
that people with heart problems do, or people with cancer do, or people 
with tuberculosis do.
  What we have had is millions of Americans, since health insurance was 
first started, to this date, millions of Americans have been born and 
died with mental illnesses. Illnesses never covered by health 
insurance. However, over time the unfairness has been whittled away, 
and we have become more and more fair.
  Today this bill says all of the group insurance policies in the 
United States of America, no matter who wrote them, no matter where 
they were written, no matter which company they were written by or for, 
will have to provide for the mentally ill who are covered. If they are 
going to have any mental health coverage, those insurance companies 
must cover them with the exact same coverage they give to others who 
suffer from other diseases as I have described in the last 6 or 7 
minutes.
  This is a red-letter day for fairness, a red-letter day for doing 
something very positive. This was a tough one, and it should have been 
easy. But it was tough. It took many years to get it through here. In 
fact, the last effort we had, believe it or not, we had a Senator who 
was so concerned about his work that he said he wanted one more 
weekend. To which I said: What can you do in one more weekend? And his 
response--and he was sincere--he said: I want to finish reading the 
bill. Nobody tells us that, but he did. He finished reading the bill. I 
thank him. I said: You must be a genius to understand what we wrote. I 
compliment you. That was one of our last hurdles. That was months ago 
in the Senate. Then it got to the House, this final bill, this bill 
before us today.
  We had a parity bill a number of years ago which was quasi almost 
parity. That got through here a little easier, although even that bill 
was resisted in the House. Many of us have warmed to the idea finally 
that the mentally ill of our country are truly people who are sick, and 
if they are treated by doctors or in hospitals for that ailment--be it 
schizophrenia, be it bipolar, be it depression, any of those doctors 
have to treat--those patients ought to be covered by general health 
insurance.
  I am so pleased we are finally doing this bill. I am so unhappy that 
my friend Senator Kennedy cannot be here today. He and I spent many 
hours talking about this legislation, changing it, moving it around. I 
know he would have loved to have been here. So I say on behalf of 
Senator Kennedy that he and I thank the Senate for this bill. It will 
be adopted shortly.
  My 10 minutes is up. This is on a bill which is destined to pass. We 
were glad to put it on the bill. Maybe we helped the bill; maybe the 
bill helped us. In any event, we are trying to do everything that 
anybody asks of us. We even had the Congressional Budget Office say 
this bill costs the Government money, and that was a hard thing to eat 
and buy, but we did buy it. It took us a long time because we had to 
have an offset. We did get one.
  For those people interested in the bill, I have said everything about 
the bill and the people with mental illness across our land. I have 
seen these people by the thousands--the mothers and fathers and 
relatives of the mentally ill. They are my friends across the land. 
Today, we have added other things and we are getting close to covering 
the mentally ill, as we should--as a concerned, considerate country 
should do.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
10 minutes on the third amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I particularly wish to thank my friend from 
North Dakota, Senator Conrad, for his courtesy because I know his 
remarks are extremely important, given these tough fiscal times.
  I will be speaking on the third amendment and particularly the part 
of that third amendment that addresses the extraordinary economic hurt 
in much of rural America. Senator Baucus and the ranking minority 
member, Senator Grassley, have worked very closely with me and a number 
of Members of the Senate who represent rural communities where the 
Federal Government owns much of the land, and tonight it looks like 
there is some promising news ahead for these desperately hard-hit rural 
communities.
  More than 100 years ago, our rural communities entered into an 
agreement with the Federal Government. What these rural communities 
said was that, in effect, they would give up their land so there could 
be a national forest system, and in return the Federal Government would 
ensure that these rural communities would have sufficient funds for 
schools and basic services.
  This was facilitated by tying these payments to the rural communities 
to the amount of timber that was cut in these areas.
  Now, this went quite well for many years. But as the environmental 
laws in our country began to change, this money shriveled up. It 
shriveled up and we were faced, in rural communities, with the prospect 
of having school 3 days a week. In my part of the country, our law 
enforcement officials were faced with not having the funds that they 
desperately needed to fight this epidemic of methamphetamines. Suffice 
it to say there was a real question--and there continues to be--as to 
whether some of these communities and some of these rural counties 
would actually survive. We have three in our State that are walking on 
an economic tightrope right now.
  So what Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley have done, working with 
a host of us from these communities--myself, Senator Bingaman,

[[Page 20080]]

Senator Feinstein, Senator Cantwell, Senators Murray, Smith, Boxer, 
Crapo, Craig, and other colleagues on both sides of the aisle--is they 
have given us the opportunity, if this third part of the extenders 
package passes tonight, to give new hope to these rural areas. The hope 
comes in the form of a multiyear reauthorization of the law that I 
wrote in 2000 with Senator Craig to the Secure Rural Schools 
legislation.
  It provides a safety net for these communities in our part of the 
country so they can educate their kids, fight drugs and crime, and pay 
for essential services. Right now, pink slips have been sent out in my 
State and elsewhere to county workers, teachers, and others. Without 
the legislation that has been put together so carefully by Chairman 
Baucus and Senator Grassley, my view is we will see devastating losses 
to the very fabric of rural communities. Some of those rural 
communities will not survive. Today's vote--the vote we are going to 
have this afternoon--provides the best opportunity we have seen in many 
months to ensure that rural communities do not drown in this economic 
crisis.
  The reason this proposal is so very important is that it is a 
multiyear reauthorization of the law that Senator Craig and I wrote in 
2000. The reason we feel so strongly about a multiyear reauthorization 
is it will give our rural communities an opportunity to plan for new 
economic development efforts where they can create good-paying jobs for 
their people.
  I know for a fact, given the huge problems we have had with fires in 
the West, that it will be possible to put together a strong thinning 
program, where we can thin out, for example, the overstocked second 
growth stands and get those merchantable materials--they are 
merchantable materials--to the mills and put our people to work.
  We are going to be able to take other steps. We want to have new 
clean energy programs, using biomass, something where the Senate has 
brought together the forest product sector, the environmentalists, 
scientists, and others. We are looking at new opportunities in carbon 
sequestration. But to have the time for our rural communities to get 
into the thinning, to get into biomass, to get into carbon 
sequestration, we desperately need this 4-year reauthorization program 
to take these rural communities off the economic roller coaster they 
have been on since the time in which these funds ran out.
  We have had wave after wave of bad economic news in rural America. We 
are now in a position to vote for a measure that will give new 
opportunity to these rural communities and particularly the opportunity 
over the next few years to survive and to look at additional business 
ventures that are tailor-made for the times. They are going to be 
greener, they are going to be sustainable, but they are going to create 
family wage employment.
  In our part of the country, we recognize this is a different day than 
it was 100 years ago, when folks in the Northwest and other parts of 
rural America made this agreement with the Federal Government. Times 
have changed, and they are certainly tough fiscal times, made tougher 
by the events of the last few weeks. But the people I have the honor to 
represent in the Senate are up to making these changes.
  On this legislation that we will vote on shortly, I am very hopeful 
that this time the other body will finally approve it; we have had 74 
votes in the Senate in favor of this package. What Chairman Baucus and 
Senator Grassley have added to the legislation virtually mirrors the 
vote that we had on the amendment I offered earlier in the Congress. 
Chairman Conrad worked very closely with westerners to ensure that this 
was fiscally responsible. Senator Grassley, the ranking Republican on 
our Finance Committee, on which Senator Conrad and I serve, worked 
closely with us. This is truly bipartisan. It is a vote that would 
bring new hope to rural America, ensuring their survival and the chance 
for better days ahead.
  I urge my colleagues to support the third part of the tax extenders 
package.
  I thank my colleague from North Dakota for the courtesy of speaking 
at this time, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to address the extenders package 
and the alternative minimum tax amendment now under consideration.
  Earlier this morning, we debated an amendment to provide several 
critical energy tax provisions which was fully offset--it was fully 
paid for. They were important items, such as provisions that will 
promote renewable and alternative sources of energy. But now we are 
debating another important amendment, the underlying provisions of 
which I also support, such as the extension of the research and 
development tax credit, and other important extender provisions that 
will help middle-class families and promote economic growth, and 
another 1-year fix for the alternative minimum tax to ensure that 26 
million taxpayers are not thrown onto the alternative minimum tax in 
2008.
  But as the chairman of the Budget Committee, I wish to be clear to my 
colleagues that the provisions in this amendment are not paid for. The 
extender and other provisions are only partially paid for, and the 
alternative minimum tax relief is not paid for at all. That, I believe, 
is a serious mistake. I fully support these provisions, but they should 
be paid for. I earlier offered an alternative minimum tax package that 
was paid for--fully paid for--and paid for in a way that it should be.
  This spring, I made a commitment to the Blue Dogs in the House that I 
would raise a point of order against any unpaid alternative minimum tax 
bill in the Senate. The Blue Dogs are to be commended for fighting for 
fiscal discipline. I intend to keep my commitment to them and to raise 
a pay-go point of order against this bill. I do it not just because I 
made that commitment but because I believe it is the right policy as 
well.
  I wish to remind my colleagues that pay-go does not require that 
these bills be paid for immediately. Pay-go requires that the 
legislation be paid for over 6 and 11 years. Given the economic 
downturn and turmoil we now confront, I would not call for paying for 
these tax reductions right now. But I also do not believe we can simply 
add them to the national debt without any offset over any period of 
time. That I believe is a mistake.
  We can provide offsets to pay for these measures over the longer 
term, and we should. That would be the responsible thing to do, and it 
would send a signal to our financial markets that we are serious about 
putting our fiscal house back into order. So I will vote to uphold my 
point of order today, but I also recognize my point of order will fail 
and that this legislation will pass and be sent to the House.
  Now, why is there a need to have alternative minimum tax relief? 
Well, the simple answer is: Because if we don't, 26 million people will 
be hit with additional taxes. In 2008, we would have 4.2 million 
affected if we passed the alternative minimum tax relief. With no AMT 
fix, 25.7 million would be affected. In other words, we would have 21 
million more affected if we don't have a 1-year fix.
  The 1-year cost of this alternative minimum tax and extender package 
is $104 billion. But these annual fixes, as costly as they are, conceal 
the much larger long-term cost of fixing this problem. The cost to 
reform the alternative minimum tax over the next 10 years is $1.6 
trillion. Let me repeat that. The cost to fix the alternative minimum 
tax over the next 10 years is $1.6 trillion.
  On the path we are following, we will absorb all that additional debt 
without a dime of it being paid for. I believe that is a profound 
mistake. Not only do I believe it, but the Congressional Budget Office 
confirms it. Over the summer I asked the Congressional Budget Office to 
examine the impact on our budget--and, more importantly, on our 
economy--from continuing to

[[Page 20081]]

pass these unpaid-for, unoffset tax reductions. The Congressional 
Budget Office found that the debt absolutely explodes if we continue to 
pass the alternative minimum tax fixes without paying for them, without 
offsets. To go further, to pass an extension of the President's tax 
cuts without paying for them, without offsets, would increase the debt 
as a share of the gross domestic product to 602 percent.
  Is anybody fiscally responsible in this Chamber anymore? Does anybody 
care about the effect on the debt, and more importantly, on the 
economy? The Congressional Budget Office, let me repeat, made it very 
clear. Here is what is going to happen to the debt without fixes to the 
alternative minimum tax, without extending the President's tax cuts. 
You can see the debt under any scenario is going to rise dramatically, 
but, if we keep passing alternative minimum tax fixes without paying 
for them, the debt will skyrocket. If we add to that an extension of 
the President's tax cuts without it being paid for, the red line shows 
what happens to the debt. Under that scenario, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office, the debt will reach 602 percent of the 
gross domestic product in 2082.
  After World War II, the debt as a share of GDP was about 125 percent. 
The debt was about 125 percent of the gross domestic product. The 
Congressional Budget Office is telling us if we continue to pass these 
alternative minimum tax fixes without paying for them, and add in the 
cost of the President's tax cuts, the debt will reach over 600 percent 
of gross domestic product in 2082.
  More importantly, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the 
effect on economic growth would also be dramatic and devastating. 
Specifically, the Congressional Budget Office found that a failure to 
pay for these policies, the alternative minimum tax fixes and extension 
of the President's tax cuts, will result in an economic loss of almost 
50 percent in the gross national product, per person, in roughly the 
next 65 years. In other words, instead of growing the economy, the 
Congressional Budget Office is finding and telling us that the debt 
created by these unoffset tax cuts will act as a giant anchor on this 
economy, dragging us down with debt and deficits, leading to higher 
interest rates, leading to less economic growth, more unemployment, and 
a weaker America.
  In CBO's letter to me presenting the results of its analysis, the 
agency noted that the economic disruption caused by these deficits and 
debt is likely to be far worse than their own models show. Here is what 
they said:

       Despite the substantial economic costs generated by 
     deficits in that model, such estimates may significantly 
     understate the potential loss to economic growth from 
     financing the tax changes with deficits . . . In reality, the 
     economic effects of rapidly growing debt would probably be 
     much more disorderly and could occur well before the time 
     frame indicated in the scenario.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I don't know when we are going to absorb 
this cruel lesson, but deficits and debt do matter. It is not just 
numbers on a page. This is the question of the economic performance of 
this country. What the Congressional Budget Office is telling us is 
that the explosion of deficits and debt hurt long-term economic growth 
and hurt it a lot--a reduction of 50 percent of the gross national 
product per person of this country.
  I deeply believe one of the reasons we have the economic turmoil we 
have now is because of the explosion of deficits and debt fueling a 
gigantic bubble. That bubble is bursting and the pain is spreading.
  We have to make a judgment. We have to make a determination. When do 
we start paying for things around here? When do we quit shuffling it 
off onto the debt? When do we stop threatening long-term economic 
growth and the economic strength of the country?
  Today could be the day that we begin the march toward responsibility. 
For that reason I will offer a budget point of order on this measure 
that is unpaid for and urge my colleagues to support the previous 
amendment I offered to fully pay for the alternative minimum tax fix 
that otherwise will hit over 25 million Americans.
  Mr. President, under the rules of the Senate I will offer the budget 
point of order as we approach that vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 5634

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to speak on the second or third 
amendments we are going to be voting on. But before I do that, I think 
the Senator from North Dakota has asked a very important question that 
I want to address: Is anyone around here concerned about the debt?
  I want to remind everybody that it seems uncharacteristic to be able 
to speak about concern about the debt when it comes to the issue of tax 
policy, and not reducing taxes but basically in this bill keeping taxes 
where they have been for years and in some instances for more than a 
decade, but at the same time not think in terms of the debt when it 
comes to spending policy.
  I have heard the Senator from North Dakota speak about concern about 
the debt when it comes to tax policy and the necessity to raise taxes 
to keep the existing tax policy in place. But at a time that we have 
increases in spending, I do not hear people talking about offsetting 
increases in expenditures.
  I spoke this morning about pay-as-you-go somehow applying to taxes, 
but when it comes to increased spending we do not see the same concern 
about spending as it is with tax policy. That is an inconsistency that 
shows to me that the other party--at least the Senator from North 
Dakota--is concerned about the debt when it comes to talking about 
taxes, but when it comes to talking about spending I do not see that 
same concern. Hence I see an inconsistency in the debate on the issue 
of pay-as-you-go.
  On this issue in this tax bill we are not talking about reducing 
taxes, we are talking about taxes that have sunset and periodically 
Congress deals with: Should we keep those same tax policies in place? 
For the most part, this bill is nothing more than keeping existing tax 
policy in place. As on the alternative minimum tax, it has been a 
policy of this Congress for a long period of time, at least since 2001, 
that we would not tax middle-income people because the alternative 
minimum tax was not indexed. This bill does that for the year 2008, so 
25 million middle-income families do not pay more. They were not 
intended to pay it with tax policy of that nature--keeping it right 
where it is.
  It is one thing to say we ought to raise taxes on other Americans to 
keep that tax policy where it has been, of not taxing the middle-income 
folks with the alternative minimum tax. But the game around here and in 
the amendment suggested by the Senator from North Dakota is to raise 
taxes permanently but to reduce the alternative minimum tax--I should 
not say reduce it, keep it so it doesn't hit 25 million Americans, 
where it has been, for 1 more year. So you have a tax increase forever 
to offset the tax policy that is for 1 year and sunsetting and have to 
deal with it next year. So next year we come back and if you follow his 
analogy, you raise taxes someplace else forever but probably deal with 
the alternative minimum tax for a short period of time of a year or 
probably at most 2 years.
  We see it as a gimmick to raise taxes forever but not to take care of 
the problems of middle-income taxpayers not being hit by the 
alternative minimum tax, but for 1 year--once in a while for 2 years 
but in this bill for 1 year. So that is my response to the Senator from 
North Dakota. I hope people, as we have, do as we have done before. 
This body last year decided that when we keep tax policy where it has 
been for a long period of time and we want to extend it for 1 more 
year, we do not raise taxes on other Americans to continue doing what 
we have done for a long period of time.
  While Members of this body may disagree on a lot of issues, there are 
some

[[Page 20082]]

concepts that I think we should all be able to agree on. For instance, 
I think we can all agree it is not fair to penalize one group of people 
for another group of people's mistakes; second, that two wrongs don't 
make a right. Despite the fact that all of us may agree on these basic 
ideas, the amendment we have before us today suggests otherwise. So the 
Conrad amendment attempts to violate these principles--first by 
punishing taxpayers for the repeated mistakes of Congress not indexing 
the alternative minimum tax and, second, by attempting to correct 
Congress's original mistakes with yet another mistake.
  The original mistake I am referring to, of course, is the alternative 
minimum tax. We all know the story. The alternative minimum tax was 
created 40 years ago in response to the discovery that a few people, 
155 wealthy taxpayers, were able to eliminate their entire tax 
liability through legal means. The goal of the AMT was to guarantee 
that extremely wealthy people were not able to game the system and 
avoid paying some income tax. While this doesn't sound like a bad 
plan--on the surface, at least--the design and execution of this plan 
could not have been worse. That is because it was not indexed. Today, 
nearly 40 years after this travesty of a law that was put into place, 
the alternative minimum tax continues to fail on every level as a 
policy instrument while plaguing more than 4 million American taxpayers 
on a yearly basis. If we do not do something, 25 million more people 
will be hit this very year.
  Since 2001 the Finance Committee has produced annual legislation to 
do what we call hold harmless the amount of families and individuals 
who are subject to this AMT. The amendment before us, if agreed to, 
would fully offset the alternative minimum tax fix for the year 2008. 
While I have said it on numerous occasions in the past, I want to say 
it again: The alternative minimum tax is a phony revenue source. It 
should not be offset, since it collects revenue that was never meant to 
be collected in the first place. In other words, it was meant to be 
collected only from very wealthy people and not from middle-income 
Americans. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this 
amendment.
  Let's look at some of the reasons the 2008 AMT fix should not be 
offset. First, we need to go back to the original purpose of the 
alternative minimum tax. As I said earlier, 155 wealthy taxpayers were 
able to completely avoid Federal income taxes in 1969, and the AMT was 
put in place to make sure this practice did not continue.
  So in 2008 has this problem been eliminated? Well, the answer is, 
absolutely not. In 2004, IRS Commissioner Mark Everson informed the 
Finance Committee that the same number of taxpayers, as a percentage of 
the tax-filing population at large, continued to pay no Federal income 
tax. In fact, the most recent IRS data available on high-income returns 
show that this problem is getting worse. According to an IRS analysis 
of tax year 2004, 2,351 taxpayers with incomes of $200,000 or more who 
do not use the medical or dental expense deduction had no income tax. 
In 2005, the number rose to 6,640. In other words, 6,640 taxpayers with 
incomes of $200,000 or more paid no income tax in 2005, which is over 
42 times greater than the number--the 155--of wealthy taxpayers who 
paid no income tax in 1969. After nearly 40 years of failure and 
futility by the alternative minimum tax, the problem of wealthy 
taxpayers legally eliminating their entire tax liability is over 40 
times worse than it was in 1969.
  Clearly, the alternative minimum tax was and is a mistake. It is not 
doing what it was proposed to do. If you keep it on the books, it is 
going to kill the middle-income taxpayer.
  Despite widespread agreement that the alternative minimum tax is a 
mistake and that something needs to be done about it, agreement on what 
exactly to do is not so widespread. A major factor in the disagreement 
relates to the massive amount of money the alternative minimum tax 
brings into the Federal Government, which is the only thing the AMT 
actually does well. In 2006, AMT filers paid more than $21.8 billion 
into the Federal Treasury, which is up from $17.2 billion in 2005 and 
greater than the $12.8 billion in 2004.
  If we do not extend the most recent AMT hold harmless, that number is 
projected to balloon to a much greater amount, and long-term budget 
forecasts currently show this greater amount coming into the Treasury. 
When forecasters put their projections together, they are working under 
assumptions that the hold harmless that was extended last year will not 
be extended again because they base their assumptions on what the law 
says right now. Because of this, budget planners make the assumption 
that revenues will be much higher than everyone who is frustrated with 
the AMT thinks they ought to be because we have concluded that middle-
income people never have paid this tax, never should pay it, so 
consequently the revenue is not going to come in. But the reason for 
this is then the AMT balloons the revenue base as it is projected to 
increase revenues as a percentage of GDP. There is a great deal of 
evidence to support this. Therefore, since these projections showing 
the AMT ballooning revenues are used to put together budgets, the 
central problem in dealing with the AMT is money.
  There are some people who say we can only address the AMT if 
offsetting revenue can be found to replace the money the AMT is 
currently forecast to collect. Anyone who says this sees the forecasts 
showing revenues being pumped up as a percentage of GDP and wants to 
keep them there.
  This argument is especially ridiculous when one considers that the 
AMT was never meant to collect nearly so much revenue. Subscribers to 
this argument want taxpayers to pay the price for a tax that was 
designed poorly and, through a comedy of errors, was allowed to 
flourish. It is simply unfair to expect taxpayers to pay a tax they 
were never intended to pay.
  Offsetting the AMT would be a clear case of attempting to correct a 
past congressional mistake by punishing innocent taxpayers both today 
and into the future. If we are going to solve this problem, we need to 
look on the other side of the ledger; that is, the spending side. 
Budget planners need to take off their rose-colored glasses when 
looking at long-term revenue projections and read the fine print. In 
general, it is a good idea to spend money within your means, and that 
wisdom holds true in this case as well. If we start trying to spend 
revenues we expect to collect in the future because of the AMT, we will 
be living beyond our means. We need to stop assuming that record levels 
of revenue are available to be spent and recognize that the AMT is a 
phony revenue source.
  As we continue to consider how to deal with the AMT, we must first 
remember that we do not have the option of not dealing with it. The 
problems will only get worse every year and make the solution even more 
difficult.
  We must also be clear that offsetting the revenue that the AMT would 
fail to collect as a result of repeal or reform should not be a 
condition of repeal or reform. We should not call it ``lost revenue'' 
because it is revenue that we never had to begin with. Making the 
offsetting of the AMT's ill-gotten gains a condition of an AMT fix is 
to punish the American taxpayer for ill-conceived and poorly executed 
policy that has been a total failure.
  Aside from not increasing the proportion of wealthy taxpayers who pay 
income tax, the AMT is projected to balloon Federal revenues over 
historical averages and to become a greater source of revenue than even 
the regular income tax. Budget forecasters need to recognize that the 
AMT is not a legitimate source of revenue, and Congress needs to be 
disciplined enough to show restraint on spending so that the AMT 
solution does not boil down to the replacement of one misguided policy 
with another. The amendment before us would certainly be such a 
misguided policy, so I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment 
because two wrongs certainly do not make a right.
  We are almost three quarters of the way through the year 2008, and 
since

[[Page 20083]]

January 1 of this year, several tax relief provisions have expired. 
These are what we call the tax extenders. The biggest one I have just 
referred to is the alternative minimum tax affecting 25 million 
Americans. There are a number of other widely applicable tax relief 
provisions in the bill. One provides millions of families with the 
deduction for college tuition, and another provides a deduction for 
teachers for out-of-pocket expenses. There is one that is very 
important to innovation in American business, which is a research and 
development tax credit.
  All of these tax relief provisions expired over 8 months ago. So far, 
the Senate has not passed these popular expiring and expired tax 
extender provisions. However, the Senate has now reached a bipartisan 
agreement that should enable us to pass this third amendment we will be 
voting on shortly. The third amendment contains these popular 
individual and business tax extender provisions as well as the 
alternative minimum tax fix, the incentive stock option AMT fix, 
disaster tax relief, and other important provisions such as the secure 
rural schools and mental health parity provisions.
  You might ask, now that the Senate is expected to pass these tax 
extenders and other tax relief in this third amendment, what could hold 
up these important, bipartisan, time-sensitive tax relief measures? 
They are time sensitive. In short, the answer is, the philosophy in the 
other body by the Democratic leadership's version of pay-go.
  I have worked with the Senate Democratic leadership, including my 
friend Chairman Baucus, in putting together this bipartisan tax relief 
package. However, it seems in the other body the leadership is saying 
that instead of taking this amendment we will pass today, along with 
the energy tax extenders we will pass today, they will instead insist 
that more of this tax relief be offset with tax increases elsewhere.
  I have spoken on this before, and the hangup the leadership in the 
other body has is that they obsess over raising taxes to offset 
continuing current tax relief policies. I offered a deficit-neutral 
path for these tax extenders, a restraint on new spending, but I got no 
takers. The leadership of the other body has been so obsessed with 
raising taxes that they were willing to hold hostage popular, 
bipartisan tax relief measures. Now the House leadership is threatening 
to kill these tax extenders unless they get the tax increase they want 
so badly.
  It reminds me of the nursery rhyme story. I am referring to the story 
of the big bad wolf. I have a chart here that depicts the big bad wolf. 
You remember the story--the big bad wolf that threatened the three 
little pigs. He said: I am going to huff and puff and blow your house 
down. The Democratic leadership is playing the role of the big bad wolf 
right now. There is some serious huffing and puffing from my friends in 
the Democratic leadership in the other body.
  For those millions of families sending their kids to college, forget 
about your tax deduction unless Democrats get their offsetting tax 
increases. They have ignored the spending cut proposals I circulated a 
few months ago. So they are not holding tax extenders hostage to a 
pledge to pay for them; they are holding tax extenders hostage to their 
version of pay-go, which is guaranteed tax increases. More revenue 
means more spending and bigger Government.
  What we have is huffing and puffing and a threat to blow the tax 
extenders house down by the big bad wolf. A partisan obsession with a 
tax-increase version of pay-go will not, at the end of the day, trump 
bipartisan, popular tax relief measures that millions of families are 
counting on. The House should take up the bill we have passed today and 
pass it through the House as well so we can send it to the President 
for his signature. If the House does not do this, the House leadership 
will have some explaining to do to millions of families and hundreds of 
thousands of businesses that will ask: What is more important--a 
partisan agenda or doing the taxpayers' business? Will House Democrats 
tell their constituents that having a big Government was more important 
to them than providing tax relief to their constituents suffering from 
natural disasters, as one example? Will House Democrats tell their 
constituents that partisan politics was more important to them than 
providing tax incentives to lower the high gas prices they are paying 
and moving away from our dependance on foreign oil, as another example? 
I will wait for a response from the House leadership. More importantly, 
the House Democrats' constituents should hear the answer.
  I urge you to vote yes on this third amendment. I also urge our 
friends in the House to pass this genuine compromise.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the 
President's Statement of Administration Policy dated September 23 in 
support of this compromise.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget, Washington, DC,
                                               September 23, 2008.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


Senate Amendments to H.R. 6049--Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 
 2008 and Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008

       The Administration supports prompt passage of the above-
     named Senate amendments to H.R. 6049. This legislation is 
     important to protect about 26 million Americans from an 
     unwelcome tax increase in the form of the Alternative Minimum 
     Tax. This legislation would also extend the tax credit for 
     research and experimentation (R&E) expenses, incentives for 
     charitable giving, subpart F active financing and look-
     through exceptions, and the new markets tax credit. The 
     Administration supports these provisions and supports the 
     passage of this legislation, despite the inclusion of several 
     provisions that the Administration opposes.
       The Administration supports tax incentives for renewable 
     energy and has proposed replacing the current complicated mix 
     of temporary incentives with a comprehensive unified approach 
     that is carbon-weighted, is technology-neutral, and provides 
     long-term certainty. The Administration believes this 
     approach would be preferable to the provisions included in 
     the Senate amendments.
       It is the policy of this Administration that efforts to 
     avoid tax increases on the American people should not be 
     offset by provisions to increase revenue and treated as the 
     equivalent of additional government spending under budgetary 
     guidelines. Protecting taxpayers from the higher 2008 AMT 
     liability and extending current rules for business taxation 
     should not be impeded by the same procedural barriers as 
     provisions to increase Congressional spending. For this 
     reason, the Administration supports the provisions in the 
     Senate amendments that provide individual and business tax 
     relief without subjecting Americans to offsetting tax 
     increases.
       The Administration remains strongly opposed to provisions 
     that would freeze the domestic manufacturing deduction for 
     one industry, change the tax treatment of foreign income for 
     American energy companies operating abroad, and eliminate the 
     cap on the oil spill liability trust fund, raising the price 
     of a barrel of oil. These provisions will increase the costs 
     of American oil production, will give further advantages to 
     foreign suppliers, and will likely result in higher prices at 
     the pump. At a time when consumers are already struggling 
     with the high price of gasoline and diesel fuel, Congress 
     should not put additional upward pressure on fuel prices. As 
     a matter of general principle, the Administration opposes 
     singling out particular industries, based on political 
     considerations, to be denied the full amount of broadly 
     available tax advantages. In addition, the Administration 
     strongly opposes the provision in the bill treating U.S. 
     citizens with deferred compensation from certain employers, 
     in all industries, more unfavorably than other U.S. citizens. 
     The Administration is also concerned about certain incentives 
     included in the bill, such as expensive and highly 
     inefficient tax credit bonds. The Administration urges 
     Congress to eliminate all such provisions from the final 
     bill. Finally, the Administration opposes new mandatory 
     funding for Payments in Lieu of Taxes, and believes that any 
     extension of rural community payments should be phased out, 
     as it has previously proposed. The Administration urges 
     Congress to eliminate all such provisions from the final 
     bill.
       The Administration supports passage of mental health parity 
     legislation included in the Senate amendments to H.R. 6049 
     that eliminates disparities between mental health benefits 
     and medical and surgical benefits without significantly 
     increasing health coverage costs. Also, the Administration is 
     pleased that the Senate amendments include the President's 
     Budget proposal to restructure and eventually retire the debt 
     of the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund.


[[Page 20084]]


  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCASKILL.) The Senator from Montana is 
recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield 10 minutes from the time on the 
bill to the senior Senator from Connecticut, a senior member of the 
HELP Committee and a longstanding advocate of the mental parity part of 
the third amendment. I also yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Minnesota from the time on the bill for her to use after the Senator 
from Oregon speaks, following the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, first let me thank my dear and longtime 
friend, Senator Max Baucus, for his kind comments. I appreciate them 
very much. And let me thank him and Senator Grassley as well. There are 
a lot of people to thank about all of this, but we wouldn't be here 
today talking about this were it not for Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley 
making it possible, as part of the tax extenders bill, to deal with 
this longstanding issue, mental health parity, that affects so many 
millions of our fellow citizens. I am confident mental health parity is 
going to become the law of the land before we adjourn, in a few days, 
this session of Congress.
  I rise in strong support of the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici 
Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008, which, as I 
mentioned, is included in the tax extenders package. This is a very 
proud moment for millions of Americans who have fought for this but 
also who know, who are themselves, have family members, neighbors, 
friends, neighbors, coworkers affected by mental illness.
  Let me begin by commending someone who is not here today, Senator Ted 
Kennedy, who we all know is recovering from a strong challenge himself 
at his home in Massachusetts. He asked me, along with Barbara Mikulski, 
to take on a couple issues when he had to leave and go back home to try 
and get his health back. Barbara Mikulski did a remarkable job in 
dealing with the higher education bill. Senator Kennedy asked me to 
monitor and work with our Senate colleagues and our colleagues in the 
other body on the mental health parity bill. While it has not yet been 
adopted, we are about to do so in the Senate. It is a moment to 
congratulate our friend and colleague from Massachusetts who needs no 
further words from me about his commitment or his family's commitment, 
his remarkable sisters, Eunice Shriver, Jean Kennedy Smith, and his 
brothers over the years. This has been a family crusade, the issue of 
mental health parity, in addition to the work of Paul Wellstone and 
Pete Domenici.
  This is also a great triumph. I know it is a matter of deep pride but 
also of relief as well that at long last we will recognize the 
importance of mental health. Let me mention Pete Domenici. Pete is a 
wonderful friend of mine. We are two people of opposite political 
parties who don't agree on a lot, looking back over the years we have 
been here together. We have taken different sides of many issues. But 
Pete and Nancy Domenici are remarkable people. He will be leaving the 
Senate in a few days after a distinguished career. I had the honor of 
being with Pete and Nancy in Las Cruces, NM, to speak at a dinner for 
him at the Pete Domenici Center for Public Policy, which is now going 
to be part of New Mexico State University. I had dinner with Pete and 
several colleagues, past and present, who have worked with him over the 
years. The Domenicis know about this issue, not just from an 
intellectual standpoint but a personal one as well. It is a matter of 
great pride to Pete and his family as well that our country, at least 
by the expression of this body and the other, recognizes the deep 
importance of this issue. We will hear shortly from my friend from 
Oregon who understands this matter very well indeed, personally, as 
well.
  I thank all those involved. Paul Wellstone was a remarkable guy. What 
a tragedy to lose him a few years ago, him and his family, in that 
dreadful plane crash. No one cared more about this issue day in and day 
out than Paul Wellstone. The first day he arrived, he started talking 
about it and never stopped during his tenure. Today, we are recognizing 
him by calling this the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici mental health 
parity bill. His son Dave has been a champion on behalf of his father's 
cause. I wish to mention Dave and how proud his parents would be that 
he has carried this cause on to both Chambers. Patrick Kennedy as well 
has championed this issue on the House side, Senator Ted Kennedy's son, 
who is a distinguished Member in his own right of the House of 
Representatives and has done a great job on this issue. I know there 
are a lot of others who are part of this. I don't want to forget 
anyone.
  I ask unanimous consent that a list of some 250 organizations that 
have been a part of this crusade be printed in the Record. I also ask 
unanimous consent that a statement by Mrs. Rosalynn Carter, Former 
First Lady of the United States and Chairwoman of the Carter Center's 
Mental Health Task Force, in support of passage of the Paul Wellstone 
and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                  Mental Health Liaison Group,

                                               September 10, 2008.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker of the House,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Minority Leader,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi, Leader Boehner, Leader Reid, and 
     Leader McConnell: We are writing to express our support for 
     the mental health and addiction parity compromise developed 
     by House and Senate negotiators. We urge Congress to pass 
     this important legislation before adjourning in September.
       Congress has taken a major step forward in developing this 
     thoughtful and balanced bipartisan legislation. We applaud 
     the long, hard work engaged in by you and your colleagues in 
     approving and reconciling the bipartisan House and Senate 
     parity bills (H.R. 1424, S. 558). We urge Congress to take 
     the last, most important step by passing this legislation.
       Passage of the balanced and bipartisan mental health and 
     addiction parity legislation would represent the fruition of 
     many years of work by members of Congress, advocates, 
     employer organizations and health plans to build on the 
     Mental Health Parity Act of 1996. This broad and diverse 
     coalition stands united in support of the parity compromise. 
     Now, Congress has the chance to reach the goal of enacting 
     this consensus legislation, before a new administration and a 
     new Congress take office, and broader health policy issues 
     begin demanding policymakers' time and attention.
       We ask Congress to pass federal mental health and addiction 
     parity legislation now.
           Sincerely,
         Active Minds, Inc.; ADAP Advocacy Association; Aetna; 
           AFL-CIO; Alliance for Children and Families; Alliance 
           for Eating Disorders Awareness; America's Health 
           Insurance Plans; American Academy of Child and 
           Adolescent Psychiatry; American Academy of Cosmetic 
           Surgery; American Academy of Family Physicians;
         American Academy of Neurology Professional Association; 
           American Academy of Pediatrics; American Academy of 
           Physician Assistants; American Association for 
           Geriatric Psychiatry; American Association for Marriage 
           and Family Therapy; American Association of Children's 
           Residential Centers; American Association of Pastoral 
           Counselors; American Association of People with 
           Disabilities; American Association of Practicing 
           Psychiatrists; American Association of Suicidology.
         American Association on Intellectual and Developmental 
           Disabilities; American Benefits Council; American 
           Counseling Association; American Dance Therapy 
           Association; American Federation of Teachers; American 
           Foundation for Suicide Prevention; American Group 
           Psychotherapy Association; American Hospital 
           Association; American Humane Association; American Jail 
           Association; American Mental

[[Page 20085]]

            Health Counselors Association; American Music Therapy 
           Association; American Nurses Association; American 
           Occupational Therapy Association; American 
           Orthopsychiatric Association; American Psychiatric 
           Association; American Psychiatric Nurses Association; 
           American Psychoanalytic Association; American 
           Psychological Association; American Psychotherapy 
           Association.
         American Public Health Association; American School 
           Health Association; American Society of Addiction 
           Medicine; American Society of Plastic Surgeons; 
           American Thoracic Society; Anxiety Disorders 
           Association of America; Aspire of Western New York; 
           Association for Ambulatory Behavioral Healthcare; 
           Association for Behavioral Health and Wellness; 
           Association for Psychological Science; Association for 
           the Advancement of Psychology; Association of American 
           Medical Colleges; Association of Jewish Family & 
           Children's Agencies; Association of Recovery Schools; 
           Association of University Centers on Disabilities; 
           Association to Benefit Children; AstraZeneca 
           Pharmaceuticals--US; Autism Society of America; Barbara 
           Schneider Foundation; Bazelon Center for Mental Health 
           Law.
         Betty Ford Center; BlueCross BlueShield Association; 
           Bradford Health Services; Brain Injury Association of 
           America; Caron Treatment Centers; Carter Center Mental 
           Health Program; Center for Clinical Social Work/ABE; 
           Center for Policy, Advocacy and Education, Mental 
           Health Association of NYC; CENTERSTONE Child, 
           Adolescent and Family Division (Nashville, TN); Child 
           and Family Guidance Center (Tacoma, WA); Child 
           Neurology Society; Child Welfare League of America; 
           Children & Families First (Wilmington, DE); Children 
           and Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity 
           Disorder; Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty; 
           Children's Hospital Boston; Children's Aid and Family 
           Services, Inc. (Paramus, NJ); Children's Defense Fund; 
           Church Women United; Clinical Social Work Association.
         Clinical Social Work Guild 49; College of Psychiatric and 
           Neurologic Pharmacists; Community Anti-Drug Coalitions 
           of America; Corporation for Supportive Housing; Council 
           for Children with Behavior Disorders; Council for 
           Exceptional Children; Council of Family and Child 
           Caring Agencies (New York, NY); Council of State 
           Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation; County of 
           Santa Clara, CA; CT Chapter National Alliance Methadone 
           Advocates; Cumberland Heights; Davis Y. Ja and 
           Associates, Inc.; DePelchin Children's Center; 
           Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance; Disability 
           Rights Education and Defense Fund; Easter Seals; Eating 
           Disorder Hope; Eating Disorders Coalition for Research, 
           Policy & Action; Emerge--Career Services (Minneapolis, 
           MN); Emergency Nurses Association.
         Empowered and Supporting Treatment of Eating Disorders 
           (FEAST); Ensuring Solutions to Alcohol Problems; 
           Epilepsy Foundation; Faces & Voices of Recovery; 
           Families First; Families for Depression Awareness; 
           Families USA; Family & Children First (Louisville, KY); 
           Family & Community Service of Delaware County (PA); 
           Family and Children's Center, Inc; (Mishawaka, IN);
         Family Conservancy (Kansas City, KS); Family Counseling 
           Service (Aurora, IL); Family Service Association 
           (Langhorne, PA); Family Service Association (Moreno 
           Valley, CA); Family Service Association of New Jersey; 
           Family Service Centers, Inc. (Clearwater, FL); Family 
           Service of Greater Baton Rouge; Family Services of 
           Northeast Wisconsin; Family Services, Inc. (North 
           Charleston, SC); Family Violence Prevention Fund; 
           Family Voices.
         Federation of American Hospitals; Feeling Blue Suicide 
           Prevention Council; General Board of Church and Society 
           of the United Methodist Church; Hazelden Foundation; 
           Higher Education Consortium for Special Education; 
           Human Rights Campaign; Jewish Family Service of Bergen 
           County, Inc. (NJ); Jewish Family Service of Los 
           Angeles; Jewish Family Services, Inc. (Milwaukee, WI); 
           Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago; Johnson 
           Institute; Judson Center (Royal Oak, MI); Kids Hope 
           United; Kids Project; Kristin Brooks Hope Center; 
           Learning Disabilities Association of America; Legal 
           Action Center; LifeSpan, Inc. (Hamilton, OH); Light For 
           Life Foundation International.
         McShin Foundation; Mental Health America; Methodist Home 
           for Children (Philadelphia, PA); Metropolitan Family 
           Service (Portland, OR); Metropolitan Family Services 
           (Chicago, IL); Minnesota Council of Child Caring 
           Agencies; Minnesota Indian Women's Resource Center; 
           Missouri Recovery Network; NAADAC, The Association for 
           Addiction Professionals; National Advocacy Center of 
           the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; National Advocates 
           for Pregnant Women; National African-American Drug 
           Policy Coalition, Inc.; National Alliance for Hispanic 
           Health; National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia 
           and Affective Disorders; National Alliance on Mental 
           Illness; National Alliance to End Homelessness; 
           National Asian American Pacific Islander Mental Health 
           Association; National Association for Children of 
           Alcoholics; National Association for Children's 
           Behavioral Health; National Association for Rural 
           Mental Health. National Association for the Dually 
           Diagnosed; National Association of Addiction Treatment 
           Providers; National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and 
           Associated Disorders--ANAD; National Association of 
           Councils on Developmental Disabilities; National 
           Association of Counties; National Association of County 
           and City Health Officials. National Association of 
           County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability 
           Directors; National Association of Health Underwriters; 
           National Association of Mental Health Planning and 
           Advisory Councils; National Association of Pediatric 
           Nurse Practitioners; National Association of 
           Psychiatric Health Systems; National Association of 
           School Psychologists; National Association of Social 
           Workers; National Association of State Alcohol and Drug 
           Abuse Directors; National Association of State 
           Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services; 
           National Association of State Directors of Special 
           Education; National Association of State Mental Health 
           Program Directors; National Coalition for the Homeless; 
           National Coalition of Mental Health Consumer/Survivor 
           Organizations; National Coalition of Mental Health 
           Professionals and Consumers.
         National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare; 
           National Council of Jewish Women; National Council on 
           Alcoholism and Drug Dependence; National Council on 
           Family Relations; National Council on Independent 
           Living; National Council on Problem Gambling; National 
           Disability Rights Network; National Down Syndrome 
           Congress; National Down Syndrome Society; National 
           Eating Disorders Association; National Education 
           Association; National Empowerment Center; National 
           Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health; 
           National Foundation for Mental Health; National Law 
           Center on Homelessness & Poverty; National Mental 
           Health Awareness Campaign; National Organization of 
           People of Color Against Suicide; National Partnership 
           for Women & Families; National Physicians Alliance; 
           National Research Center for Women & Families.
         National Respite Coalition; National Retail Federation; 
           National Spinal Cord Injury Association; Neighborhood 
           House, Inc. (Columbus, OH); New Jersey Alliance for 
           Children, Youth, and Families; NISH; Northamerican 
           Association of Masters in Psychology; Obsessive 
           Compulsive Foundation; Our Family Services (Tucson, 
           AZ);
         PACER Center; Paralyzed Veterans of America; Pennsylvania 
           Educational Network for Eating Disorders; Presbyterian 
           Church (USA) Washington Office; Remuda Ranch; Renfrew 
           Center for Eating Disorders; RiverzEdge Arts Project 
           (Woonsocket, RI); Rogers Behavioral Health System, 
           Inc.; Rogers Memorial Hospital; Schizophrenia and 
           Related Disorders Alliance of America; School Social 
           Work Association of America.
         Shaken Baby Alliance; Sjogren's Syndrome Foundation; 
           Society for Adolescent Medicine; Society for 
           Personality Assessment; Society for Research in Child 
           Development; Society of Professors of Child and 
           Adolescent Psychiatry; Specialized Alternatives for 
           Families and Youth; State Associations of Addiction 
           Services; Substance Abuse and Addiction Recovery 
           Alliance of Northern Virginia; Suicide Awareness Voices 
           of Education; Suicide Prevention Action Network USA; 
           Teacher Education Division of the Council for 
           Exceptional Children; The Advocacy Institute; The Arc 
           of the United States; The Bridge, Inc. (Caldwell, NJ); 
           The Emily Program; Therapeutic Communities of America; 
           Title II Community AIDS National Network; Tourette 
           Syndrome Association; U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
         Union for Reform Judaism; Unitarian Universalist 
           Association of Congregations; United Cerebral Palsy; 
           United Church of Christ Mental Illness Network; United 
           Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; 
           United Jewish Communities; US Psychiatric 
           Rehabilitation Association; Wellstone Action;

[[Page 20086]]

           White Fields, Inc. (Piedmont, OK); Wisconsin 
           Association of Family & Children's Agencies; Witness 
           Justice; Word of Hope Ministries, Inc. (Milwaukee, WI); 
           Yellow Ribbon Suicide Prevention Program.
                                  ____


    Statement for the Record In Support of the Passage of The Paul 
 Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity 
   Action of 2008, By Mrs. Rosalynn Carter, Former First Lady of the 
 United States, Chairwoman, Carter Center's Mental Health Task Force, 
                            Atlanta, Georgia

       I am pleased to have the opportunity to express my strong 
     support for the passage of a critical health issue facing 
     millions of Americans: parity for the treatment of mental 
     illnesses and substance use disorders.
       I have been working on mental health issues for more than 
     35 years. When I began no one understood the brain or how to 
     treat mental illnesses. Today everything has changed--except 
     stigma, of course, which holds back progress in the field.
       Because of research and our new knowledge of the brain, 
     mental illnesses now can be diagnosed and treated 
     effectively, and the overwhelming majority of those affected 
     can lead normal lives--being contributing citizens in our 
     communities.
       I join many individuals and hundreds of national 
     organizations calling for an end to the fundamental, 
     stigmatizing inequity of providing far more limited insurance 
     coverage for mental health care than for treatment of any 
     other illnesses. Again, I join forces with my friend Betty 
     Ford in urging action on this important issue.
       Jimmy and I founded The Carter Center 25 years ago, and I 
     have a very good mental health program there. Annually we 
     bring together leaders to take action on major mental health 
     issues of concern to the nation. We have focused many times 
     on stigma and discrimination and the importance of insuring 
     adequate, equitable coverage for people with mental 
     illnesses.
       To me, it is unconscionable in our country and morally 
     unacceptable to treat 20 percent of our population (1 in 
     every 5 people in our country will experience a mental 
     illness this year) as though they were not worthy of care. We 
     preach human rights and civil rights and yet we let people 
     suffer because of an illness they didn't ask for and for 
     which there is sound treatment. Then we pay the price for 
     this folly in homelessness, lives lost, families torn apart, 
     loss of productivity, and the costs of treatment in our 
     prisons and jails.
       I have always believed that if insurance covered mental 
     illnesses, it would be all right to have them. This may be 
     why the stigma has remained so pervasive--because these 
     illnesses are treated differently from other health 
     conditions.
       All mental illnesses are potentially devastating. But today 
     living a life in recovery from a mental illness is not only 
     possible, but expected. We had an intern at The Carter Center 
     this spring, for example, who has obsessive compulsive 
     disorder and depression. While she was in high school, she 
     once spent two solid weeks in her house, unable to leave or 
     be with her friends. I am happy to say that she received 
     treatment, is a college graduate with Phi Beta Kappa honors, 
     and just got a job in Washington, DC. Without resources and 
     support, she could still be sick and shut in her home, which 
     is what happens to so many who do not get the help they need 
     because of lack of the ability to pay for services. We as a 
     country lose all the many contributions of these wonderful 
     people.
       I have the pleasure of being friends with Tom Johnson, the 
     former publisher of the Los Angeles Times and former CEO of 
     CNN and a person who has struggled with depression. He has 
     been interested in the mental health benefits offered by 
     employers in Atlanta. He and two other prominent CEOs in the 
     Atlanta community--all of whom have suffered from severe 
     depression and are now great leaders--have had an enormous 
     impact on businesses in the area.
       Through the research of people like Howard Goldman and 
     Richard Frank, we know that parity in insurance benefits for 
     behavioral health care has no significant increase in total 
     costs when coupled with management of care. We also know that 
     a number of enlightened companies such as AT&T, Delta Air 
     Lines, Eastman Kodak, General Motors, and IBM have provided 
     comprehensive coverage for their employees. (Report to the 
     Office of Personnel Management, by Washington Business Group 
     on Health)
       Since the mental health commission we held during Jimmy's 
     presidency, there have been several major reports released 
     including the first Surgeon General's Report on Mental 
     Health, President Bush's New Freedom Commission on Mental 
     Health, and the Institute of Medicine included mental and 
     substance use conditions in its series of reports on the 
     quality of American health care. All of the reports reinforce 
     the statement that effective treatments are available, but 
     most people who need them do not get them.
       The whole nation has learned a lot about the importance of 
     mental health issues through the events of Hurricane Katrina 
     and the needs of our returning soldiers and National Guard 
     troops. We support our troops in the field, and it is 
     critical that we continue to support them when they come 
     home.
       Finally, I would like to comment on the number of states 
     that have moved ahead with parity. These have been long-
     fought battles with some states managing wonderful successes. 
     It is so important that stronger state parity laws continue 
     to improve the lives of people with mental illness and 
     addiction. It is also critically important that plans not 
     override the intent of this legislation by discriminating 
     against those with certain diagnoses of mental illness and 
     addiction in their coverage. I am glad to see that this 
     legislation includes efforts to keep a close watch on this 
     issue. The intent of this law is fairness, not 
     discrimination.
       After waiting for 15 years, we finally have mental health 
     and addiction parity legislation in sight. If this 
     legislation is passed, many of our citizens will be 
     healthier, and our nation will be stronger, more resilient, 
     and more productive.
       On behalf of the millions of people affected by mental 
     illnesses, I applaud your efforts to pass the mental health 
     and addiction parity legislation. I know the work has been 
     hard, but the benefits to our nation will be enormous.
  Mr. DODD. I thank them and others who have been a part of this. 
Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, doesn't often get recognized, 
but without him, none of this happens. While we associate mental health 
parity issues with Senator Kennedy and Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici 
and others, the majority leader makes all this possible. While he 
probably wouldn't say so himself on this issue, I can guarantee you we 
were not going to leave for this session of Congress without a chance 
to vote on this issue. Harry Reid made it a quiet, personal commitment 
that this body would have a chance to express itself on this issue. 
Without that kind of commitment from the distinguished majority leader, 
these matters often can slip away and disappear. To Harry Reid, the 
majority leader, the Senator from Nevada, to the millions of people 
affected by this issue as well, we thank him for his commitment.
  This legislation has the potential to impact 1.8 million insured 
individuals from my home State of Connecticut, 150 million Americans in 
the United States, but with 1 in 5 American families directly affected 
by mental illness, the impact of this legislation will be much broader. 
Every one of us, every American knows a friend, has a relative, a 
neighbor, a coworker, colleague whose life has been touched by mental 
illness in one way or the other. With this legislation, we are saying 
that mental illness will no longer take a backseat to physical illness.
  With this legislation, we are taking an important step toward tearing 
down the stigma that people with mental illness face every single day 
and have for decades. The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental 
Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act will end health insurance 
discrimination between mental health and substance abuse disorders and 
medical and surgical conditions. Upon passage of this bill, health 
insurers will no longer be permitted to charge higher copays or limit 
the frequency of treatment for people with mental illness than what 
they would for a medical or surgical condition. The bill before us 
builds on what the Senate passed unanimously 1 year ago. The bill 
strengthens the requirements around out-of-network benefits for mental 
illness and improves the transparency of decisions made by insurance 
companies with respect to mental health coverage.
  A component of the bill I wish to highlight is its protection of 
State laws that provide for greater consumer protection than what 
exists in Federal law. I take pride in the fact that I represent the 
small State of Connecticut. Yet my State recognized the disparity 
between insurance coverage for physical and mental illness years ago. 
They did so by taking a significant step to address mental illness by 
enacting strong mental health parity and consumer protection laws. 
These laws far exceed what currently exists in Federal law, and I 
believe the bill before us today will allow my State and others to 
maintain those strong laws in the future. The protection and 
preservation of State law is an issue I have fought long and hard for 
during Senate consideration of this bill. It is an issue

[[Page 20087]]

of crucial importance to my State and will no doubt be a central issue 
next year, when I hope this body acts on legislation to finally make 
mental health care universal in this country as part of a universal 
health care effort.
  Of all the health care issues I have worked on, it is a rarity to 
find an issue with as many diverse interests putting their full weight 
behind passage of a bill such as this. As I mentioned, more than 250 
national organizations, representing consumers, family members, 
advocates, professionals, and providers have signed a letter urging 
Congress to pass this legislation into law. It is so important that we 
have that kind of support. I will not go through all the organizations 
involved, but I wish to highlight the work of the Connecticut 
Psychological Association, Aetna, which is headquartered in Hartford, 
and the Connecticut Insurance Department and Office of Healthcare 
Advocacy. They have all played an important role in this legislation.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to act now and pass this bill. We tip our 
hat to Ted Kennedy, Paul Wellstone, Pete Domenici, and all those who 
fought and care about this issue. It is a great moment for the country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. 
Dodd, for his statement on health parity. When I first began wrestling 
with this issue, he was unusually helpful to me in breaking the dam, 
this cause of mental health and suicide prevention. I thank him for 
that. I will never forget him for that. I think of Senator Kennedy and 
of Pete Domenici and others who have been my allies to move not just 
the youth component but mental health parity as an essential 
ingredient, to help move it forward and put it on a basis that is equal 
with physical health. The truth is, if you have physical health and you 
don't have mental health, you do not have health. In fact, you may have 
something just as lethal as leukemia or any other dreaded disease.
  America is taking a great step forward with the passage of this 
extenders package today. I suspect many of my colleagues are having 
their phones ring off the hook as we speak on the issue of financial 
insecurity that is leading the headlines of the papers and on all the 
news shows and talk shows. It is something that is deeply distressing 
to every American and certainly to this American.
  What we have in this country that we are dealing with, at its root, 
is a crisis in confidence over credit. Right or wrong, like it or not, 
commerce in this country runs on credit. Small businesses without 
cashflow have to take out loans. As I evaluate this package--and I have 
made no decision on it--I am going to be looking to make sure there are 
no golden parachutes, to make sure this is not a bailout of fat cats 
but that this goes to Main Street in ways that help people who are 
already suffering the consequences. We can do things such as extending 
unemployment insurance, improving LIHEAP. We can even add additional 
funds to food stamps. But at the end of the day, what does matter to 
the people who have a job and go to work is to have employers who are 
creditworthy. If their banks are not creditworthy, if their banks have 
written their assets down so much that when you put your money in, they 
keep it, they don't lend it out--when that happens, commerce stops. 
Jobs are lost. The carnage spreads. That is what we are dealing with in 
this very difficult week in the Senate, to make sure we do the best we 
can in this deliberative body that the Constitution gives the purse 
strings.
  We have to do it right. If it comes up wrong, we have to start over 
and do it better. There is no place for golden parachutes for those who 
have taken advantage of the rules on Wall Street in ways that have 
victimized many people. We have already put $300 billion toward the 
bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These are government-sponsored 
enterprises. In those institutions, apparently the leaders, the boards, 
were playing fast and loose with the terms Congress gave them in their 
charter in a way that is both deplorable and more than lamentable. 
There are people who need to be held accountable for what has happened. 
But Fannie and Freddie are the central plank in the problem of our 
credit. That is what started the dominos.
  Having said that, I do wish to suggest that this extenders package is 
most worthy of passage, not just because of the mental health parity 
that is included, but I wish to talk about another feature that my 
colleague Ron Wyden and I have been working on ever since we have been 
in the Senate together. That is the secure rural schools extension. 
This has been most difficult because it has not been easy to explain to 
our colleagues all over the country who do not know what it is like to 
have the Federal Government own most of your State. When the Federal 
Government owns your State, the local governments cannot tax the 
Federal Government. So dating back to the beginning of statehood in 
Oregon in 1859, there was a relationship developed between the Congress 
and Oregon, and other similarly situated States, whereby they would 
receive 25 percent of what are called timber taxes or mining taxes or 
extraction taxes, these kinds of resources that come from public lands.
  It is through that, because the counties don't have a tax base, that 
rural folks are able to have schools, streets, and neighborhoods that 
are safe, with police protection. That worked very well, even through a 
big reformation period under Teddy Roosevelt, when these things were 
redone. It has worked very well. But in the 1990s, there came a great 
effort to save the spotted owl. There came a change in forest policy 
with the Clinton administration. The purpose was to save the spotted 
owl. We learned now, decades later, that the spotted owl was not 
imperiled by logging. It is now imperiled by catastrophic wildfire. It 
is now imperiled by a nonnative owl called the bard owl, and the bard 
owl likes to eat the spotted owl. Nevertheless, the carnage has been 
done. At the end of the Clinton administration, the President was good 
enough to sign replacement revenues which are called county payments or 
secure rural schools funding.
  It has been hard to get these funds reauthorized. We had it extended 
by one year last year. This package extends it 4 years. It needs to be 
extended. This is not a golden parachute. This is keeping the covenant 
with rural counties. This is vital if we are to keep faith with rural 
places and people in very vulnerable areas.
  I am delighted this legislation is included in the package. The 
Senate has passed it before with huge majorities because Senator Wyden 
and I--he has worked that side of the aisle and I have worked this side 
of the aisle--made sure we got it in, that we keep enough support on 
both sides that it could make it to the House of Representatives, where 
I hope and I pray it will be accepted.
  But I would conclude my remarks by saying: I understand from some of 
my neighboring States that the formula had to be changed. This bill 
represents a declining interest to Oregon of 60 percent. The 60 percent 
is based on a cut to Oregon, which is based on a new formula. The new 
formula is not based on history. You see, the old formula was that the 
money goes to those counties where God put the trees. Now, it is 
distributed differently, so our neighboring States can get more, and 
Oregon gets less. I do not like that.
  But I want to say there is a way to remedy that deficiency, and that 
is to go back to a balance on forest policy that allows for a 
sustainable yield, allows for the creation of timber jobs, allows for 
the development of American timber for American homes and American 
commerce. Instead of being a nation that imports lumber, we can once 
again be a self-sufficient country in lumber.
  We need the help of the administration. We have had it with President 
Bush. We have not had it with the courts. But the courts, I hope, are 
changing because this is literally a matter of economic life and death 
for vulnerable rural communities. So what we have to have is this, 
which is the

[[Page 20088]]

best we can get, and we need it for 4 years.
  Then we need to make up this deficiency the old-fashioned way, by 
letting men and women in rural places go back to work, to manage our 
forests, these public lands that can be managed in a way that is 
consistent with the environment and creates the economic blessings 
Oregon and other places have known in the past. Those blessings, in 
short, are family-wage jobs, the kinds of jobs that pay property taxes, 
build schools, pave streets, and keep neighborhoods safe. If we can do 
that, all will be well and this day will represent a good day for the 
State of Oregon and particularly its rural parts and places.
  With that, I thank the Presiding Officer for the time and yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for 
his support for the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici mental health 
parity bill, something I am going to talk about in a minute.
  Madam President, as we focus on the very serious and urgent challenge 
facing our financial system, we must not lose sight of the equally 
serious challenge of building a solid foundation for America's economy 
in the long term. Today, we have the opportunity to vote on a 
bipartisan bill--the Energy Improvement and Extension Act--which will 
help America build that long-term foundation.
  I thank Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus for their work on this 
bill. The bill we vote on today provides an opportunity for the first 
step to move America forward. The way we have been handling these 
energy incentives has been like a game of red light, green light: on 
again, off again, on again, off again. While our country develops so 
much of the technology for wind and solar, we have now been leapfrogged 
by other countries that have more long-term policies in place that 
encourage investment in these areas.
  You can drive past hundreds of massive wind turbines along Buffalo 
Ridge in southwestern Minnesota. My State is the third leading producer 
of wind power, and that is because our State, on a bipartisan basis, 
has set some standards and put those incentives in place. On the Iron 
Range in northeastern Minnesota, a large mining company has just 
announced it will invest $15 million to build a facility to produce a 
renewable biofuel using a variety of sources, such as switchgrass, corn 
husks and stover, wood byproducts and oat hulls. This is about the 
future of energy.
  When I get questions about this and how we need to move with energy, 
I always remind people of the first start of the computer age when we 
had those big computers in those big rooms and they were inefficient, 
and over time they got more and more efficient, so those computers can 
fit in the palm of someone's hand. But to do that, as a country we are 
going to have to have that individual focus and that determination to 
invest and set those standards.
  Today is the first step. I think our energy challenge offers similar 
opportunities that we had when we put a man on the Moon. So we have to 
ask ourselves this: Will the United States be a leader in creating the 
clean energy technology jobs and industries of the future or are we 
just going to sit back and watch the opportunities pass us by with 
Japan and Europe and India leading the way? Today, with the bill before 
us, we have the opportunity to be that energy leader.


                           Amendment No. 5635

  We also have a chance to be a better leader in an area of health care 
where we have come up short for far too long. I am referring to the 
mental health parity bill that is included in this package. We have 
tried to pass this legislation through the Senate over and over again. 
These efforts predate my time in the Senate, and they continue to this 
day.
  My friend and our former colleague, the Senator from Minnesota, Paul 
Wellstone, fought for this law as a matter of justice and fairness. 
Senator Domenici, on the other side of the aisle, was right there with 
him and has continued to press for this legislation. Senator Kennedy 
has been a champion for this legislation, and Senator Durbin. In the 
House, there is Patrick Kennedy and one of my favorite Republican 
Congressmen, Jim Ramstad from Minnesota. He is stepping down this year, 
and he does not want to leave until this bill gets done.
  As Paul Wellstone always insisted: A mental health parity law is 
about equality and fairness. It is also about human dignity. Although 
much has changed over the years, people who suffer from a mental 
illness continue to suffer from a deep social stigma--something that 
can be just as challenging to live with as their illness. Their 
families suffer too. This legislation is not just about health 
insurance. It is also about eliminating the stigma and affirming the 
dignity of the Americans who suffer from a mental illness or an 
addiction.
  Paul knew about this and cared about this issue because of his 
brother Steven who had a mental illness. He was hospitalized. His 
family was thrown into debt. Paul would often talk about how, during 
those years, there was a darkness in their home. Paul's brother 
eventually got proper treatment and secured his dignity at great cost 
to their family. Paul did not want anyone else to go through what their 
family went through.
  He also cared about this bill because he always cared about the 
underdog, the person for whom it seemed as though there was nothing 
else there for them. That is what Paul Wellstone was about: putting 
those people first in the Halls of the Senate.
  Whenever I walk through the Senate and say I am a Senator from 
Minnesota, I hear stories from other Senators about Paul. But the 
stories I remember most are those I hear from the secretaries in the 
front offices or the tram drivers or the police officers who guard the 
front of the Capitol. They, too, tell me about Paul and how good he was 
to them and how he treated them with respect. That is what Paul brought 
to this job. That is why he cared so much about this legislation.
  In 1995, Minnesota enacted a mental health parity law that is among 
the strongest in the Nation. In the past 10 to 15 years, other States 
have enacted some version of mental health parity. The problem is that 
despite these State laws, 82 million Americans do not benefit because 
their employers' self-insurance plans come under the jurisdiction of 
the Federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA. It is 
time for them to receive the same protection as Americans whose 
insurance does not come under ERISA.
  I think about the legendary Supreme Court Justice, Justice Brandeis, 
who had a famous saying about States being the laboratories of 
democracy. He said:

       It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that 
     a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve 
     as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic 
     experiments without risk to the rest of the country.

  But Justice Brandeis did not mean that ``novel social and economic 
experiments'' must forever stay at the State level. If an experiment is 
successful at the State level--especially in many States--then it may 
very well be something that should be taken up on a larger national 
scale. Mental health parity has proven its value in State after State. 
Now it is time to take this well-tested innovation to the national 
level so our country has a uniform, equal standard of mental health 
parity that applies to self-insurance plans under the jurisdiction of 
ERISA.
  There are so many good reasons for our Nation to have a mental health 
parity law: economic reasons, health reasons, criminal justice reasons, 
and reasons of basic fairness and human dignity. For me, there is one 
special reason why we must pass this legislation. That reason is Paul 
Wellstone. This legislation is about everything he stood for--about 
fighting for people who do not have power and do not have a voice, 
people who would rather hide than speak up because of the stigma and 
the shame, people who needlessly suffered because of discrimination and 
prejudice. This bill is about Paul. It is about his brother Steven. It 
is about

[[Page 20089]]

his family. And it is about his determination to help bring justice and 
dignity to millions of Americans who live in the shadow of mental 
illness. When Paul was alive, many people in this Chamber said they 
wanted to pass this bill, and when Paul died, they said they wanted to 
pass this bill. Well, the time has come to pass this bill.
  Senator Kennedy, home watching everything that goes on in this 
Chamber, wants to get this done. Before he retires, Jim Ramstad wants 
to get this done. And Paul Wellstone's sons have been here day after 
day walking the halls of the Capitol, knocking on doors, trying to do 
this for their father's memory. We have waited too long.
  We have the opportunity to finally get this bill into law. It is an 
opportunity to put aside all the excuses and, instead, to put front and 
center all of the many good reasons this law will serve our Nation 
well. I hope, when this vote comes up today, this bill will pass and it 
will pass by a large margin. It is a tribute to Paul and to all the 
people who have waited for so long to get their dignity.
  I thank the chair.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, this third amendment, which I hope we 
vote on successfully very soon, addresses tax relief for American 
families and tax relief for American businesses. The amendment 
addresses jobs, families, disaster relief, and mental health parity.
  I was particularly struck by the last speaker. She is right. The 
mental health parity provision is so important for so many reasons, 
especially for the people who deserve equal treatment, in addition to 
being in honor of Senator Ted Kennedy and also in honor of Paul 
Wellstone.
  This amendment also prevents the alternative minimum tax from hitting 
millions more American families. Our economy is struggling, and so are 
America's working families. Markets are experiencing volatility. At 
times such as these, Americans need tax cuts that they have come to 
count on and that can help them get by. That is why this amendment 
includes a 1-year patch for the alternative minimum tax. This patch 
would protect more than 21 million Americans from falling victim to the 
AMT. We will not let more taxpayers fall into the alternative minimum 
tax.
  In addition, the amendment would extend expiring individual and 
business tax provisions for 2 years. These provisions include the 
qualified tuition deduction to give families relief from high tuition 
costs. In my home State of Montana alone, almost 14,000 families would 
get help with high college tuition.
  The amendment also includes the teacher expense deduction. This 
deduction gives back to teachers some of the money they spend on school 
supplies to educate America's children.
  The amendment includes a State and local sales tax deduction for 
those States without an income tax.
  The amendment covers several business incentives that help keep 
American businesses competitive and create jobs. The amendment includes 
incentives such as the research and development credit. This credit 
gives an incentive to businesses to invest in research. It helps to 
create and keep American jobs with good wages, and it helps to keep 
America competitive in the global economy.
  This package does more than just extend expiring provisions. It 
expands the refundable child tax credit. By expanding this valuable 
credit, nearly 3 million more children will be eligible for this tax 
incentive.
  This amendment would also help to improve health care for countless 
families dealing with mental illness. This mental health parity 
legislation would mandate equal assistance for those suffering from 
mental illness. This legislation has been championed by our late 
colleague, Paul Wellstone, and our colleagues Ted Kennedy and, of 
course, Pete Domenici. It has long been a goal in the Senate and it is 
a goal that we can finally meet today.
  The amendment would provide much-needed relief to families and 
businesses that have been devastated by natural disasters.
  Right now, our country is experiencing rough economic times. Congress 
should do more than just extend legislation; Congress needs to meet the 
needs of the American people.
  Let us help to create jobs. Let us help working families make ends 
meet. Let us achieve mental health parity once and for all. Let us 
provide relief for those who have suffered from natural disasters.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:45, 
all time be considered yielded back, and the Senate then proceed to 
vote in relation to the amendments and the motion to waive the Budget 
Act in the order in which offered; that prior to each vote, there be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form; 
that after the first vote in the sequence, the remaining votes be 10 
minutes in duration, with the remaining provisions of the previous 
order governing consideration of H.R. 6049 still in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I further ask unanimous consent that 
upon disposition of H.R. 6049, the Senate then proceed to a period of 
morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 
minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, a couple words on the first amendment to 
be voted on. The energy amendment would help create well-paid jobs in 
the growing field of new energy technology, help to secure our 
independence from high-priced foreign oil, and move us closer to 
addressing global warming. I urge my colleagues to vote for the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I speak in favor of the Baucus-
Grassley amendment, which is an important step in our effort to free 
America from our addiction to foreign oil. The amendment converts tax 
incentives for conventional energy and, in turn, puts that as an 
incentive for alternative energy, as well as conservation.
  The amendment continues the path to development of clean coal, hybrid 
vehicles, and biofuels. A vote for this amendment is a vote for a 
brighter American future for all families, for cleaner fuel. I ask that 
you all support the amendment.
  Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from 
Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 202 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback

[[Page 20090]]


     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     Crapo
     Kyl
       
       
       

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Biden
     DeMint
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
  The amendment (No. 5633) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to reconsider is made and laid on 
the table.


                           Amendment No. 5634

  There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally divided on Conrad 
amendment No. 5634.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered today is a 
fully paid for alternative minimum tax fix. To go down the road of 
fixing the alternative minimum tax without offset, without paying for 
it, will only grow the debt dramatically. The 10-year fix for the 
alternative minimum tax costs $1.6 trillion, all of it added to the 
debt.
  Yesterday, I say to my colleagues, the dollar dropped 2 percent in 
value in 1 day, after already falling 40 percent in value over the last 
2 years. The key reason analysts gave was burgeoning debt in the United 
States that undermines the credibility of our national credit.
  It is time to start paying for things. This is a fully paid for, 
fully offset alternative minimum tax, paid for in ways that are not 
controversial.
  I thank the Chair, and I urge my colleagues to vote aye.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, everyone, of course, agrees with the 
Senator from North Dakota that the fiscal situation is unsustainable. 
So as an alternative--as the minority ought to offer a reasonable 
alternative--on this side, our leader a few weeks ago offered a 
deficit-neutral proposal on AMT and on extenders. That proposal would 
have reduced new above-baseline spending nondiscretionary 
appropriations for future years. That deficit-neutral proposal was 
rejected. In its place is this amendment, which insists that AMT relief 
be conditioned on a tax increase.
  A vote for this amendment is a vote to hold AMT relief now, and in 
the future, hostage to a tax increase. That is not reasonable. I urge 
my colleagues to reject the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
5634.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from 
Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 203 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--42

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Biden
     DeMint
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, 60 votes being 
required to adopt the amendment, the amendment is withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 5635

  There is now 2 minutes of debate equally divided on the Baucus-
Grassley perfecting amendment. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, 53 Senators voted to pay for an 
alternative minimum tax fix. That is a majority. I am now raising the 
point of order, a budget point of order against an unpaid-for 
alternative minimum tax fix, again reminding our colleagues the cost to 
continue on this path to fix the alternative minimum tax for 10 years 
is $1.6 trillion, all added to the debt.
  Yesterday the dollar went down 2 percent in value in 1 day. 
Colleagues, we simply have to begin to pay for things; otherwise, the 
creditworthiness of our country will be in question and at risk.
  Therefore, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment 
violates the pay-go section 201 of the S. Con. Res. 21, a concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable budget 
provisions for the consideration of the Baucus-Grassley amendment No. 
5635.
  I might say, if this point of order is not waived, then the 
underlying extenders bill will not pass and AMT will be felt by 
millions of taxpayers next year. As much as we would like to pay for 
everything, we cannot pay for everything in this context at this time. 
Without this amendment, the tax extenders will not pass. The underlying 
bill for the AMT should pass for a year. It fixes the child tax credit, 
provides support for rural schools, the mental health parity 
provisions, as well as finally it provides disaster relief for families 
and businesses. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and waive 
the point of order.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could direct a question to my friend, 
the chairman of the Budget Committee. We already had this vote. Do we 
need another one? It is obvious it is not going to get it. I committed 
to the House we would have a vote. What purpose is there of this vote? 
We have already proven we cannot get 60 votes, so why do we need 
another vote?
  Mr. CONRAD. We have raised the point of order. I made a commitment to 
our colleagues in the House to carry that out. I feel honor bound to 
have a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),

[[Page 20091]]

the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from 
Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 84, nays 11, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 204 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--11

     Brown
     Byrd
     Carper
     Conrad
     Corker
     Feingold
     Kerry
     McCaskill
     Sanders
     Voinovich
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Biden
     DeMint
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 84, the nays are 
11. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Pursuant to the previous order, the amendment is agreed to and the 
motion to reconsider is considered made and laid on the table.


                        National Disaster Relief

  Mrs. BOXER. I thank Senator Baucus, for joining me to discuss the 
Senate Finance Committee's substitute amendment to H.R. 6409.
  Mr. BAUCUS. It is my understanding that the Senator would like to 
speak about an issue related to the national disaster relief section of 
the Finance Committee substitute to H.R. 6409.
  Mrs. BOXER. The Senator is correct. Throughout the summer a swarm of 
dry lightning storms sparked more than 2,000 fires across drought-
ridden land in California, burning over 900,000 acres of public and 
private land. These fires damaged and destroyed homes and businesses 
across the State.
  As the Senator knows, his bill makes taxpayers in ``federally 
declared disaster'' areas under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
and Emergency Assistance Act eligible for certain tax relief 
provisions.
  Under the Stafford Act, the President has the ability to designate a 
disaster area under a ``major disaster declaration'' or an ``Emergency 
Declaration.'' Areas affected by wildfires in California this year were 
provided an ``Emergency Declaration'' by the President.
  In the matter of what ``federally declared disaster'' areas are 
eligible under the bill on the floor, the Senator's Finance Committee 
staff and the Congressional Research Service have indicated that both 
categories of disaster declaration have historically been eligible for 
disaster tax relief purposes.
  Is it the Senator's understanding that the term ``federally declared 
disaster'' includes both categories of disaster declarations, and that 
Californians affected by the 2008 wildfires are eligible under division 
B, title VII, subtitle B, sections 706-711 of the substitute to H.R. 
6409?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Yes, it is the committee's intention that Californians in 
federally declared disaster areas will be eligible for tax relief in 
the sections the Senator has referenced.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Paul 
Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity 
Act of 2008.
  Enacting comprehensive parity legislation is long overdue. This is 
simply a matter of fairness and I hope the Senate will pass this 
compromise legislation so it can be sent to the House today. We owe 
nothing less to the more than 80 million Americans suffering with 
mental illness and addiction.
  Thoughtful compromises were made so that the bill we are considering 
today provides mental health and addiction benefits on par with other 
medical and surgical conditions and, for the first time after 12 years, 
a compromise is supported by all of the business, insurer, addiction 
and mental health groups.
  Throughout my time in office, I have been a strong advocate for 
ending the discrimination against people suffering from mental illness 
and addiction and ensuring those in need have access to effective 
treatment services. This passion was shaped by the many Minnesotans who 
have raised their voices to get us to where we are today in this 
important fight. In particular, I want to thank all the people at 
Hazelden Foundation, Kitty Westin from the Anna Westin Foundation, NAMI 
Minnesota, the Minnesota Psychological Association, Mental Health 
America's Minnesota advocates and others. Finally, this bill will not 
only be a living legacy to their tireless efforts, but also to the 
unwavering support from Senators Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici, and 
Representative Jim Ramstad.
  As a supporter of parity legislation since I arrived in the Senate, I 
know that passage of comprehensive parity legislation and ensuring 
access to treatment is long overdue. I know that effective mental 
health and addiction treatment can mean the difference between 
happiness and hopelessness and in some cases, even life and death. The 
good news is that those of us on both sides of the aisle and both wings 
of the Capitol finally recognized this and are coming together to send 
a strong bill to the White House.
  The time is now. Let's end the discrimination by passing the Paul 
Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity 
Act of 2008.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, while this is far from being a perfect 
bill, I am pleased that the Senate is finally taking up this package of 
``tax extenders'' after repeated filibusters of this effort by the 
minority.
  I am a strong supporter of advanced and alternative energy 
technologies and believe that the tax incentives included in this bill 
are an essential component of bringing these technologies to the 
commercial market place. We need a balanced energy strategy that 
includes energy from a broad array of sources--renewable technologies 
such as solar, wind, and biomass, as well as more conventional sources 
such as clean coal and natural gas. We also need to reduce our 
consumption and dependence on petroleum by promoting expanded use of 
advanced, more fuel-efficient vehicle technologies and alternative 
fuels such as ethanol and other biofuels. Critical to the success of 
all of these advanced and alternative energy technologies are tax 
incentives, which will both spur development of these technologies and 
make them accessible and affordable to consumers.
  The energy tax extender package was a long time in coming. The Senate 
considered it first in June 2007, again in December 2007, and then 
multiple times in this calendar year. This package extends many 
critical existing tax incentives--including those for renewable 
production of electricity from wind, solar, and biomass; it extends 
existing tax credits in the area of alternative fuels production and 
alternative fuel infrastructure; and it extends tax incentives for 
energy efficient appliances and residential home energy improvements. 
The package also includes new tax incentives for plug-in hybrid 
vehicles, small residential wind investments, and carbon capture and 
sequestration technologies.
  This package of energy tax provisions will take important steps 
forward to develop and commercialize all of these technologies. 
Renewable technologies such as wind and solar are becoming more 
economical every year

[[Page 20092]]

and our manufacturing sector can play a major role in the production of 
these technologies. Extension of these tax credits is critical to the 
development of these technologies and critical to our manufacturers 
ability to commit to projects that will utilize these technologies. 
Similarly, extension of the tax credit for alternative fuel pumps for 
ethanol and natural gas, and extension of tax credits for production of 
ethanol and other biofuels are essential to both the production and 
distribution of these fuels.
  I am particularly pleased to see in this package establishment of a 
new tax credit for consumers for plug-in hybrid and all-electric 
vehicles. All of our auto manufacturers are working to develop new 
vehicle technologies that will use advanced batteries and will draw a 
greater percentage of their power from electricity. These technologies 
will revolutionize the way in which we drive and the distances that we 
can go without refueling. But the development and commercialization of 
these technologies are also expensive. Therefore, these tax incentives 
are key not only to the development of these technologies and but also 
to consumer acceptance and widespread use of these vehicles.
  This bill also provides help to those affected by the numerous 
floods, tornadoes, and severe storms that occurred this summer in the 
Midwest. I am pleased that those individuals and businesses that 
suffered losses this past June in Michigan's declared disaster areas 
will be eligible for these benefits.
  I am also glad that this bill extends the research and development 
tax credit. At a time of increasing globalization, America's prosperity 
depends more than ever on its capacity for innovation. For decades, our 
Nation's leadership in basic and applied research has led to 
discoveries that have dramatically improved living standards and given 
rise to new industries that have in turn created millions of high 
paying jobs in engineering, research and technology. Other countries 
are well aware of the significant economic benefits that flow from R&D 
activities, and many have created strong tax incentives designed to 
increase levels of local R&D and attract R&D investment from around the 
world. Particularly for large multinational corporations, the question 
is often not whether to invest in R&D, but where. I hope that in the 
near future we can cement our commitment to this incentive by making 
the R&D credit permanent.
  There are a number of other good policies that I am pleased are in 
this bill, including the IRA rollover provision which allows 
individuals over the age of 70\1/2\ to donate up to $100,000 from their 
individual retirement accounts to qualifying charitable organizations 
on a tax-free basis. This provision has contributed to a considerable 
increase in IRA donations to eligible charities across our country. 
Unfortunately, the provision was only temporary, and it expired at the 
end of 2007.
  I am also glad that this bill extends the critically important 
adjustment to the alternative minimum tax. Relief from the AMT is 
needed to avoid imposing an unintended tax increase on millions of 
middle income families. But in order to have money for other 
priorities, AMT relief should be done without busting the budget. I 
wish that the amendment that would have paid for this provision had 
been adopted.
  There is another part of this bill that deserves mention: the Paul 
Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity 
Act. This critical piece of legislation will address inequities between 
health insurance coverage for medical and surgical benefits and 
coverage for mental health and substance abuse disorders for group 
health plans with more than 50 employees.
  Under most health insurance plans, beneficiaries of mental health or 
substance abuse services do not receive the same level of coverage as 
medical and surgical services. An earlier piece of legislation, the 
Mental Health Parity Act of 1996--title VII of Public Law 104-204--
sought to address this issue by providing limited parity for mental 
health coverage under employer-sponsored group plans. While the 1996 
parity law prohibits insurers from establishing more restrictive annual 
and overall lifetime limits on mental health coverage than for other 
health coverage, it is far from adequate. For example, the Act did not 
require that mental health benefits be offered as part of a health 
insurance package. Additionally, it did not require parity in 
copayments or deductibles for mental health services nor does it 
require health plans to cover a minimum number of inpatient days or 
outpatient visits. As a result, many health plans have found ways to 
discourage the use of mental health care by setting higher copayments 
and deductibles, or by lowering limits on the number of hospital days 
and physician visits for which they would pay.
  Under this new legislation, if such a group health plan provides both 
medical and surgical benefits as well as mental health or substance 
abuse benefits, the plan's requirements and limitations must not be 
more restrictive as applied to mental health or substance abuse 
benefits. For example, if such a plan provides out-of-network coverage 
for medical and surgical benefits, then it must also provide parity in 
out-of-network coverage for mental health or substance abuse disorder 
benefits. If the change leads to increases in cost for a particular 
plan, the legislation establishes a procedure whereby an employer can 
apply for 1-year exemptions.
  Mental health parity is about basic fairness and equity. Individuals 
suffering from mental health illnesses deserve access to adequate and 
appropriate health care. I am glad that Congress is righting this 
wrong.
  My concerns with this bill are not over what is included, but rather 
what is not. The main dispute in the long drawn-out battle over these 
extenders has been whether we could do this in a way that is fiscally 
responsible, so that we do not leave our children and our children's 
children to foot the bill. I am troubled by the fact that this bill 
pays for only $42 billion of the $161 billion 10-year cost of extending 
these incentives. Some of my colleagues argue that Congress should just 
add the $62 billion cost of the AMT fix to the deficit and leave it at 
that. But while taxpayers are given necessary relief, if we don't pay 
the cost, but merely increase the debt, the burden is shifted to our 
children and grandchildren.
  Paying for these extenders does not need to be controversial, and we 
do not need to raise taxes on the middle class. It is estimated that 
the use of offshore tax havens by tax dodgers robs our Treasury of more 
than $100 billion in revenue each year, leaving honest taxpayers to 
foot the bill. Last year I introduced the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, 
S.681, which would provide important tools to combat offshore tax 
abuses and would bring in a significant amount of that lost revenue. I 
will continue to fight to enact that bill and other commonsense 
measures to close tax loopholes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as a Senator that not only represents a 
leader in renewable energy technology but also helps run the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee, I am pleased that we have finally reached 
a compromise which will allow us to extend important tax credits for 
renewable energy.
  History tells us that our most promising technologies frequently need 
government assistance in order to get off the ground and become 
economically viable. One of the most effective ways we can do this is 
through our Tax Code.
  Our Nation is facing unprecedented challenges in our financial 
markets and in energy. I have spent much of my time over the last few 
months talking about the need to build a bridge toward our energy 
future. I believe that bridge consists of increased oil and gas 
production from American lands offshore. I am pleased to note that 
since the time I first introduced legislation to open up lands offshore 
in May, there has been a sea change in both public opinion and the 
opinions of my colleagues on this issue.
  But the domestic oil and gas that I am talking about is not the 
entire solution. In fact, as I said, it is just a bridge to the 
ultimate solution, and that is the development of new technologies that 
will allow us to use far

[[Page 20093]]

less oil. Those technologies include plug-in hybrid cars as well as 
renewable energy sources like wind, solar, biomass and geothermal.
  In 2005, as chairman of the Energy Committee, I was pleased to lead 
the Senate to pass the largest and longest tax credits for renewable 
energy in history. We have renewed those tax credits several times 
since then, but these credits are once again set to expire. Every time 
they get close to expiring, investments in the industry begin to dry 
up, and the uncertainty hurts our Nation's ability to deploy these 
technologies in a timely and cost-effective manner.
  We have struggled with the tax extensions during this Congress, 
because, frankly, the majority has decided to play politics with them. 
For the first time in history, they have demanded that they be offset 
through tax increases. Although the Senate voted 88-8 to extend them 
without those tax increases earlier this year, the House refused to 
consider our proposal, and the renewable energy industry has suffered 
as a result.
  At last, there appears to be a light at the end of the tunnel if the 
House of Representatives doesn't seek to politicize this issue once 
again. A reasonable, commonsense agreement to extend the tax credits 
for renewable energy, as well as do several other important things like 
mental health parity and fixing the AMT problem, has been reached. I 
will address those subjects in greater detail, but it should be noted 
that the agreement now before us does offset much of the cost of the 
tax credit extensions, but it does so in a way that will not harm 
domestic production of energy.
  I urge my colleagues to support this agreement in its totality, and I 
sincerely hope that the House will take up this entire package and pass 
it so that these essential tax credits will once again not be allowed 
to expire.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. KENNEDY. I thank all my colleagues in the Senate and their 
staffs who have worked so long and hard and well to bring us to this 
historic day on mental health parity.
  In particular, I recognize our late friend and colleague, Senator 
Paul Wellstone, who championed this fight for so many years. Without 
the leadership of Senator Wellstone and our colleague Senator Domenici, 
we would not be here today.
  Americans believe we are all created equal. This legislation brings 
us closer to that ideal by ending a particularly invidious form of 
discrimination--discrimination in health insurance against tens of 
millions of Americans who suffer from mental illness.
  One in five Americans will face mental illness this year. Today at 
least, the Senate can say to them loud and clear, you will no longer 
have to suffer in the shadows.
  Through the miracle of modern medicine, mental illnesses are just as 
treatable as physical illnesses--but patients with mental illnesses are 
still treated very differently.
  That difference is unfair and unacceptable. It makes no sense for 
health insurance companies to charge patients more for mental health 
care than they do for physical health services.
  It is tragic when any family member is diagnosed with an illness; it 
is heart-wrenching for a parent to watch their child suffer.
  But the tragedy is even greater, when treatment is denied solely 
because the child's illness is a mental illness.
  This discrimination can tear families apart, exactly when they should 
be coming together to support their loved one. The last thing any 
parent should have to worry about is whether insurance will pay for the 
needed care and treatment.
  When mental illnesses of our fellow citizens are treated, they get 
their health back--and we get back our friends, our family members, and 
our coworkers.
  The parity legislation before us is a landmark agreement after 10 
years of stalemate, not only in Congress, but also with the mental 
health community, businesses, and the insurance industry.
  Now, we have come together and agreed at long last to end the 
senseless discrimination at all levels of society that has plagued 
persons living with mental illness.
  Together, we have worked to end injustice that has denied them the 
care and treatment they deserve. We have agreed that equal treatment of 
mental illness is not just an insurance issue--it is also an issue of 
civil rights.
  At its heart, mental health parity is an issue of fundamental 
justice, and today that fundamental justice arrives in the lives of 
millions of our fellow Americans, and I thank all my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle for making this day possible.
 Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, for far too long, American workers 
and businesses have awakened each day to wave after wave of bad news: 
rising foreclosures, $4 gasoline, job losses, inflation, bank runs, 
credit crises, embassy bombings, triple-digit stock losses, devastating 
hurricanes . . . the bad news just keeps coming. The burden is heavy 
and Americans are tired.
  But today, a ray of sunlight is peeking through the storm clouds. 
Today, I am happy to share some good news with you. It is good news 
when the Senate can rise above partisan politics and find solutions to 
tough problems. And it is very good news when that solution lets 
taxpayers keep more of their hard-earned money.
  The legislation before us will provide much needed tax relief to 
individuals, families, and American industry and put us on the path 
towards recovery. It will spur the development of alternative energy 
sources and help free our dependence on foreign oil. It will protect 
working Americans from the overarching reach of the alternative minimum 
tax and expand the child tax credit to help low-income working 
families.
  This bill also includes some very good news for Wyoming. It preserves 
the sales tax deduction on taxable income. This will enable residents 
of Wyoming and other States that have no State income tax to deduct 
their State sales taxes when filing their Federal income tax returns. 
Without it, Wyoming residents would shoulder an unfair share of the 
Federal tax burden.
  This bill also enhances funding for rural schools. In States like 
Wyoming where a large percentage of land is federally owned, local and 
State governments lose property tax revenues which are traditionally 
used to fund education and other local government functions. 
Historically, the Federal Government shared timber sale produced 
receipts with rural counties with Federal forests but timber receipts 
have been inconsistent creating budget uncertainty for rural counties 
to provide for schools, roads, and other county needs. This tax 
extenders bill would reauthorize and expand the Secure Rural Schools 
and Community Self-Determination Act and provide additional support for 
Wyoming schools.
  The bill also includes important tax provisions that promote 
charitable giving and reward the tireless volunteers who help rebuild 
our communities after natural disasters.
  This legislation will encourage business research and development--
the twin engines that power our economy by spurring the development of 
new technology and creating more jobs.
  And for the first time, the Senate will establish health insurance 
parity between mental health coverage and medical surgery coverage.
  The Presidential campaigns spend a lot of time engaged in endless 
volleys about reforming health care, but my colleagues Senators Kennedy 
and Domenici--and I have actually done something about it. This is an 
accomplishment we have worked long and hard to achieve and I would like 
to take a moment and explain how important this is.
  In 1996, Senator Domenici and the late Senator Paul Wellstone 
authored a law that provided parity specifically for annual and 
lifetime limits between mental health coverage and medical surgical 
coverage. Although it was a landmark accomplishment and an important 
step forward, it was just the first step in the effort to address this 
issue.

[[Page 20094]]

  Our bill will improve upon the 1996 law by including deductibles, 
copayments, out-of-pocket expenses, out-of-network benefits, 
coinsurance, covered hospital days, and covered outpatient visits. 
Essentially, it will require health insurance plans that offer coverage 
for mental health to offer it in parity with their coverage for 
physical health. It will help ensure Americans with serious mental 
illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are treated fairly 
and can receive appropriate care. It will not mandate mental health 
coverage, but it will improve coverage that is available to 113 million 
Americans.
  Mental health parity has been a long time coming. We are here today 
because my colleagues and I worked together with business, insurance 
and mental health groups for thousands of hours over many years to 
forge a common solution. Instead of fighting for the same old 
positions, where one side wins and the other loses, we worked hard to 
find a third way to get it done.
  I often say that on any given issue, people can agree on about 80 
percent of it, and they will never agree on the other 20 percent. By 
focusing on the 80 percent we could agree on, instead of the 20 percent 
where we'll never reach agreement, we found common ground on mental 
health parity and a third way that addressed the concerns of 
stakeholders.
  The broader tax extenders package before us today isn't perfect. It 
is expensive and some of the temporary tax credits are offset with 
permanent tax increases, but it's a start. I think Americans are tired 
of watching Congress pit the ``perfect'' against the ``pretty good'' so 
that both sides lose and nothing gets done. We have accomplished 
something today and makes today a good day.
  Indeed, this bill is good news and I am happy to share it with the 
people of Wyoming and all hard-working Americans.
 Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are reaching the end of a long 
road. We are about to pass the compromise on the AMT patch, extenders, 
energy tax incentives, and disaster relief.
  I urge my friends in the House leadership to take a careful look at 
the votes the Senate took this afternoon. Also, they should take a look 
at the White House policy statement. House Democrats will see $42 
billion of revenue raisers. House Republicans will see an unoffset AMT 
patch, extenders and other items.
  There must be a majority to match the supermajority here.
  I thank Chairman Baucus, Leader Reid, Leader McConnell, and their 
staffs. I wish to single out Russ Sullivan, Bill Dauster, Cathy Koch, 
Josh Odinitz, Pat Bousilman, Tiffany Smith, Mary Baker, Bridget Mallon, 
and Ryan Abraham.
  I also wish to thank the Senate legislative team led by Jim Fransen. 
Finally, the crew at Joint Tax went above and beyond the call of duty. 
Ed Kleinbard, Tom Barthold, and the Joint Tax team moved effectively 
and efficiently.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will support this measure, but I 
do so reluctantly because in passing this bill the Senate is also 
passing its cost on to our children and grandchildren rather than 
paying for it. With the exception of the provisions relating to 
emergency disaster relief, the provisions of this measure were entirely 
predictable and as such could have been fully offset with spending 
cuts, revenue increases, or some combination of both. The emergency 
disaster relief provisions are another matter, and I do not suggest 
that they should have been offset, though it is always preferable to do 
so whenever possible. But the disaster relief provisions, which I 
strongly support, represent a tiny fraction of the entire cost of this 
bill. The bulk of the cost stems from one provision, namely the so-
called 1-year patch of the alternative minimum tax to ensure that tax 
does not expand its reach to millions of average families. The need for 
this fix has been known for some time. Indeed, it has become almost an 
annual ritual to extend the AMT patch, and regrettably Congress has 
done so without paying for the fix. Instead, we have just added the 
cost to the debt. This year, the 10-year cost of that provision will 
amount to over $60 billion, every penny of it added to our already 
massive debt.
  As I have noted frequently on this floor, every dollar that we add to 
the Federal debt is another dollar that we are forcing our children and 
grandchildren to pay back in higher taxes or fewer government benefits. 
When the government in this generation chooses to spend on current 
consumption and to accumulate debt for our children's generation to 
pay, it does nothing less than rob our children of their own choices. 
We make our choices to spend on our wants, but we saddle them with 
debts that they must pay from their tax dollars and their hard work. 
And that is not right.
 Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, although long overdue, I am very 
pleased that the Senate has come to an agreement to renew expiring tax 
provisions critical to families across America, as well as to provide 
incentives for the production of clean energy and conservation that 
could create 100,000 new jobs. As working families are struggling to 
put food on the table and gas in their cars, I am especially grateful 
that the package assists the least fortunate among us by including a 
proposal to lower the income threshold for the refundable child tax 
credit that Senator Lincoln and I have championed.
  I urge my colleagues to support this responsible and balanced 
package. And, I would like to especially thank Senators Baucus and 
Grassley as well as their staffs for working days, nights, and weekends 
in forging this agreement. These two gentlemen exemplify the bipartisan 
tradition of this Senate and how this body can get its work done if 
Members are willing to reach across the aisle to find some middle 
ground.
  Unfortunately, partisan gridlock too often ties the hands of even 
these Senate stalwarts. Frankly, it is unconscionable that in what 
could potentially be the closing hours of this Congress, we are only 
now moving a step closer to enacting this legislation. At a time when 
renewable energy projects are being mothballed because of this 
uncertainty and Americans are demanding action on energy policy, I 
cannot believe that we have been abrogating our duty to serve the 
American people by our inaction on this time-sensitive issue. It seems 
to me that these tax extensions should have been the low-hanging fruit 
that we could have done much sooner.
  We could have unleashed sooner renewable energy projects creating 
jobs, provided targeted tax relief to low-income working families 
struggling to pay the high cost of food and fuel, encourage an infusion 
of capital into rural and urban communities, provide tax incentives for 
retail businesses looking to grow their business, and help keep the 
jobs associated with film production within our borders.
  This is occurring at a time when our economy teeters on the brink of 
recession; when we have seen the collapse of a banking institution 
founded in 1850; when the U.S. government has seen no other way but to 
take over and buy the assets of other major financial institutions; 
when unemployment surged to 6.1 percent last month the highest rate 
since 2003; when gasoline at the pump is near $4 a gallon; when oil 
costs are have risen to over $120 per barrel; and when foreclosures 
have hit historic level, do we really want to say that we can't extend 
a renewable energy tax credit that caused 45 percent growth in wind 
energy production last year and that we can't adopt energy efficiency 
tax credits that create necessary incentives to reduce energy demand?
  Consider the economic impact of inaction. Dr. Mark Cooper of the 
Consumer Federation of America estimates that from 2002 to 2008 annual 
household expenditures on energy increased from about $2600 to an 
astonishing $5300. In my state of Maine, where 80 percent of households 
use heating oil to get through winter, it is going to be even worse.
  Last year at this time, heating oil prices were at a challenging 
$2.70 a gallon--for a Mainer who on average uses 850 gallons of oil 
that is $2,295. With current prices at $3.80 per gallon, the cost per 
Mainer just to stay warm will

[[Page 20095]]

be $3230, and that is not even considering gasoline costs. That is the 
difference between a burden and a crisis.
  Now is not the time to allow energy efficiency tax incentives and the 
renewable production tax credit to expire. But that is what we are 
doing unless we pass this bipartisan package today. Energy efficiency 
is by far the most effective investment that our country can make to 
address the calamity of an absent energy policy. It constitutes a 
dereliction of duty if Congress allows energy efficiency tax credits to 
expire. In fact, some tax credits already have expired, and as a 
result, there are currently no incentives to purchase efficient 
furnaces. At a time when Americans are worried about paying heating 
bills this winter, we must provide the assistance to encourage 
investment in energy efficient products that will reduce our collective 
demand for energy, and save Americans money.
  Yet, we have jettisoned a $300 tax credit to purchase a high 
efficiency oil furnace, which would produce more than $430 in annual 
savings for an average home--according to calculations based on 
Department of Energy data and recent home heating prices. We have 
sidelined an extension of a tax credit for highly efficient natural gas 
furnaces that would save an individual $100 per year. However, this tax 
credit ended at the beginning of this year--when oil prices began their 
historic rise.
  And for businesses that are competing against countries that 
subsidize oil, the situation is untenable. Earlier this summer, 
Katahdin Paper Company in my state announced that the cost of oil used 
to operate its boilers has caused the company to consider closing the 
mill's doors. Talks are under way to find alternative solutions to re-
start the mill's operations and revive its 208 jobs, but it is 
undeniable that these jobs hang in the balance because of unprecedented 
energy costs.
  One remedy would be to create more renewable energy jobs that would 
help right a listless economy and invest in a secure energy future. 
Indeed, more than 100,000 Americans could have been put to work this 
year if clean energy production tax credits had been extended.
  We could have already unleashed renewable energy projects creating 
jobs, but instead, projects currently underway may soon be mothballed. 
Clean energy incentives for energy efficient buildings, appliances, and 
other technologies, as well as additional funding for weatherizing 
homes, would similarly serve to stimulate economic activity, reduce 
residential energy costs, and generate new manufacturing and 
construction jobs. It is irresponsible to allow a bright spot in our 
economy, the renewable energy industry and energy efficiency 
industries, to falter, when the output of these industries is so 
essential to the future of this country.
  Extending these expiring clean energy tax credits will ensure a 
stronger, more stable environment for new investments and ensure 
continued robust growth in a bright spot in an otherwise slowing 
economy. I am encouraged by the bipartisan agreement that is before us 
today. We must not lose yet another opportunity to raise the bar for 
future domestic energy systems and energy efficiencies, benefiting our 
economy, our health, our environment, and our national security. I hope 
that the House of Representatives will quickly take up and pass this 
package.
  Some may argue this is an election year and we must lower our 
expectations for getting things accomplished. I couldn't disagree more. 
And I met a remarkable woman from Maine earlier this year who couldn't 
disagree more--because time is quickly running out on this Congress to 
take necessary steps to help Americans like her. She told me she had 
three jobs--the first to pay for the mortgage, the second to pay for 
heating oil, and the third to pay for gas to be able to drive to her 
other two jobs and this was back in April.
  Solving this crisis isn't about party labels. It isn't about 
Republicans or Democrats--or red states or blue states. It is about 
what is good for America, and what unites us as Americans under the 
red, white, and blue. We must move in that direction as a country.
  But, there is much more in this package beyond energy tax incentives. 
The legislation before us will extend the New Markets Tax Credit 
through 2009. Based on the New Markets Tax Credit Extension Act of 
2007, which I introduced with Senator Rockefeller, this provision will 
help to ensure that investment dollars continue to flow to underserved 
communities.
  Additionally, the tax extenders package will enable retailers who own 
their properties to depreciate over 15 years, instead of 39 years, 
improvements to those structures. Based on my legislation, this Main 
Street-friendly provision levels the playing field between owner-
occupied and leased retail space and will help to generate additional 
construction and renovations to stores nationwide by lowering the cost 
of capital in a tightening credit market.
  Also included is a provision that will allow companies to claim 
accelerated depreciation for the purchase of recycling equipment. This 
provision is based on my Recycling Investment Saves Energy, RISE, Act 
and will save energy, create jobs, strengthen local recycling programs, 
and improve the quantity and quality of recycled materials.
  So as you can see, this package is more than just extending expiring 
tax provisions. This legislation will create jobs, move us closer to 
energy independence, encourage investment in low-income communities, 
and provide much-needed relief to low-income families struggling to 
meet just their basic needs.
  I would hope that when we finally adjourn, we can say we extended 
this critical tax relief. I would also hope that at the beginning of 
next year, when a new Congress is sworn in, we will commit ourselves to 
serving those who have entrusted us with their votes, where reaching 
across the aisle is the norm, not the exception--where looking for 
consensus is viewed as the answer, not an aberration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, for the benefit of all Members, we are going 
to shortly have our last vote of the evening. The work we have 
accomplished today is historic. This is the ninth time we voted on 
renewing and extending the renewable tax credits. We finally did it.
  We are going to send over to the House a package that is remarkably 
good, a 2-year extension of the business tax extensions that are so 
necessary. For the first time in a long time, it is not 1 year, it is 2 
years. The business community thinks this is extremely important, as do 
I.
  As I said earlier this morning, I hope the House accepts what we do. 
I do my very best to get along with the House, Democrats and 
Republicans. But everyone should understand we have had a very 
difficult time getting to the point where we are, in passing the final 
version of this bill. If the House does not pass this, the full 
responsibility of not passing this is theirs, not ours.
  Now, people may say: Well, we want all the tax credits paid for. But 
I say to my friends in the House, AMT is not going to be paid for. Much 
of what we do around here is not paid for. It is nothing I necessarily 
like. But are we asking that the war be paid for? I ask what is more 
important, to extend these tax credits for 2 years and bring about some 
stability in the business community or have, out of the blue, the House 
telling us that everything has to be paid for? AMT is not going to be 
paid for. So how do they pick and choose what is right to be paid for?
  So I would hope everyone understands the importance of this 
legislation, and all 100 Senators, if you would be good enough to call 
your counterparts in the House and tell them--I think if they had a 
vote in the House on our passage, it would pass overwhelmingly. I hope 
that can be arranged.
  I would hope my friends will do that. We have not accomplished much 
this work period. That is an understatement. This would be an 
accomplishment for us. I hope we can do that.
  Tomorrow we are going to come in and have morning business. We are

[[Page 20096]]

moving to proceed to the Coburn matter. That is an effort so we have 
something on the floor to proceed to. We are not going to do anything 
on that piece of legislation. We are going to pass a few of the things 
tonight, I think 4. That will be 5 things we have passed when we are 
done. There are still 29 to go.
  But tomorrow I hope Senators would take this opportunity, when we 
have a relatively free day, to come in and perhaps give statements 
about those Senators who are retiring and whatever else you wish to 
talk about.
  Now, when we get things from the House, we will move to those as 
quickly as we can. The House, it is my understanding, is filing and 
going to order both tonight, filing and doing the order on the CR. We 
should get that maybe tomorrow, maybe Thursday. They are then going to 
do a stimulus. We will see what happens with that, an economic recovery 
package.
  As we speak, we are trying to work something out on this financial 
crisis facing this country. Democrats and Republicans had some concern 
about this. I hope we can work to get this done. I am not giving a 
political speech here, but I am giving a factual speech the best I can.
  None of us are happy about the situation we are in. I can direct 
blame just as well, and sometimes better, than a lot of people as to 
why we are here. But we are here. We have to figure out some way to 
move beyond where we are. I would hope the White House is listening. I 
would hope the Republicans are listening and Democrats are listening 
because a lot depends on what we do, and we have to do it right. I am 
not asking anyone to do anything fast; we have to do it right. Maybe we 
can do both, do it fast and do it right.
  So there are meetings going on tomorrow that will hopefully help move 
us down the road. I got some good news in the last hour or so, that it 
appears Senator McCain is going to come out for this. It would be a 
tremendous help if he would do this. As you know, Senator Obama has 
come out for this package, with basically the same thing that--I think 
he and McCain are pretty well in line with this. Some of the statements 
coming out of the McCain camp last night were not very good, but they 
have changed over the day. I certainly hope that is the case.
  So we all want to work together. We want to do the best we can to 
move this forward. This week those are the things we need to do before 
we leave. I have talked about them on a number of occasions. We have to 
try to do something on economic stimulus. That is still a jump ball. 
The continuing resolution is pretty well, from our perspective, going 
to be filed tonight. We have been fortunate to work with Congressman 
Obey. The latest word I got is that the Defense appropriations bill is 
going to be in the CR. That is extremely important.
  We all know what is finally in it. It is not loaded down with a lot 
of extraneous material. Then we are going to work on the economic 
recovery package and try to make sure we have a vote on that sometime 
before we leave.
  We got good news today. The Defense authorization conference has been 
completed. We are going to finish that before we leave. If it takes a 
number of cloture votes, then we will have to do it. But it is 
something that has been worked on long and hard. We have been through 
that.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the distinguished leader yield? I hope to have a 
meeting in the Vice President's Office with my Republican colleagues to 
explain the status of that bill. I think the distinguished chairman has 
set up a similar meeting for his colleagues.
  Mr. REID. I think I have covered everything we need to do before we 
leave. Again, I would say it is not a question of us leaving on a given 
day or time, but it is a question of being able to complete our work 
before we go, and we have an opportunity to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, a couple of words underlying what the 
leader said in his remarks. These are not only for our membership but 
also for the other body.
  The underlying bill has mental health parity in it. The underlying 
bill is also 2-year extenders. We are wrapped around the axle too much 
in this body by having actual extenders every year. This is 2 years.
  Third, this is a compromise between both bodies. They want everything 
paid for, this body does not. It is a compromise in the middle. For 
those reasons, I very much hope the other body supports this measure we 
are about to adopt.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read 
a third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the passage of the bill, as 
amended.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from 
Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas, 93, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 205 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     Carper
     Conrad
       
       
       

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Biden
     DeMint
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
  The bill (H.R. 6049) as amended, was passed, as follows:
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)

                          ____________________