Tax Equity for School Teachers Act of 2006

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Specter, along with Senators Landrieu and Lott, in introducing the ``Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2006.''

In 1945, Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act, giving the insurance industry almost complete immunity from Federal antitrust laws. The Act acknowledges the significant role States have in the regulation of the business of insurance, and implements this policy by preempting Federal antitrust laws which would intrude upon State authority in the area.

Industry specific statutory exemptions from antitrust laws are rare, and when they are enacted, it is important that we periodically revisit them to ensure that the benefits of the exemption are not outweighed by the potential harms that could be imposed on consumers from the loss of competition. The McCarran-Ferguson Act is no exception and, for good reason, has recently been revisited by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

At a recent hearing before the Committee, it became abundantly clear that the McCarran-Ferguson Act is no

longer a justified or practical law; it is overly complex and stifles competition. Recognizing that the insurance industry has unique characteristics, including the dependence on collective claim and loss data, Senator Specter and I drafted a bill to accommodate those legitimate needs while still providing Federal regulators with the tools to investigate and prevent collusion and other anticompetitive behaviors. More specifically, our bill authorizes Federal enforcement agencies to police violations of antitrust laws, without weakening the States' comprehensive regulatory power.

American consumers, from sophisticated multi-national businesses to Vermonters shopping for personal insurance, have the right to be confident that the cost of their insurance reflects competitive market conditions and not collusive behavior. Yet, when consumers are continually faced with higher prices, fewer options, and declining quality of service from their insurance providers, there are no such assurances.

There is little disagreement that consumers are increasingly frustrated with the cost and quality of their insurance policies. This bill is an important step towards restoring integrity in our insurance markets. I hope it will act as a catalyst for action to ensure market forces are at work in the insurance industry.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Public Research in the Public Interest Act of 2006. If enacted, this bill will save lives and improve the quality of health for millions of families living in impoverished nations. Recently, I have introduced and cosponsored six bills to address the increasingly important issues that relate to global health and the need for earlier access to generic medicines in the United States.

Each year, millions of people needlessly suffer from disease in impoverished countries worldwide because they lack access to lifesaving medicines. And each year, America's world-renowned research universities develop innovative treatments to combat these diseases. However, under our current system, these treatments do not get to the families in impoverished nations who so desperately need them.

Today, 15 percent of the world's people consume about 91 percent of the world's pharmaceuticals. The high price of lifesaving medicines-- medicines we take for granted--puts them far beyond the reach of millions of the most vulnerable populations.

While the concept of my bill is simple, the implications are profound. If passed, my bill would greatly lessen the cost burden of generic drugs in the developing world. It would achieve this by requiring federally funded research institutions to permit their inventions, such as, drugs, vaccines, and innovative medical devices, to be provided inexpensively by generic companies distributing medical supplies to the developing world.

Federally funded labs and research institutions have a vital role to play in meeting this goal. For example, Yale University has an agreement with Doctors Without Borders to permit their generic version of its lifesaving AIDS drug to be used for a pilot treatment program in South Africa. To date, Yale's humanitarian endeavor, which in no way reduced their licensing revenues, continues to save thousands of lives.

It is time to ensure that public funds truly serve public purposes-- in this instance, delivering essential health care needs at minimal costs to American taxpayers, universities, and pharmaceutical companies. Unfortunately, this Congress has been tied up in knots recently and has been unable to pass even critical appropriations bills. The measures before us are crucial. This comprehensive approach toward providing better global health aid and better access to generic drugs should become law, and I am committed to trying to make it so. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, in this Congress or the next, to enact this important legislation.

I have recently introduced or sponsored six bills to address the need for better access to low-cost generic medicines. Two of these bills relate to global health, and four of them address the need for earlier access to generic medicines in the United States.

Federally funded laboratories and other research institutions have a critical role to play in delivering affordable medicines to those sick and suffering worldwide. In 2000, a Senate Joint Economic Committee Report found that public research was instrumental in developing 15 of the 21 drugs considered by experts to have had the highest therapeutic impact on society.

Between 1970 and 2001, there was a ten-fold increase in the number of U.S. patents issued annually to U.S. academic institutions. American universities, hospitals, and other nonprofit research centers concluded that more than 4,500 license and option agreements were executed in 2003, more than double the license and option agreements executed in 1993. A major share of these patents is in the biomedical field.

The World Health Organization's 2006 Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health has also recently recognized the crucial role of universities. The WHO recommended that universities adopt licensing practices designed to increase access to medicines in developing countries.

The report also tells the story of one way in which the crucial role of university innovations and other publicly funded research in promoting global public health first came into the public eye. It is an interesting story.

In 2001, the international organization Medecins Sans Frontieres, or MSF, requested Yale University's permission to use its generic life- saving AIDS drug, stavudine, for a pilot treatment project outside Cape Town.

This was at a time when HIV drugs were first being introduced in the developing world. The costs were prohibitive. Scientists at Yale University had discovered stavudine's value in the fight against AIDS, and Yale University was the key patent holder.

In response to MSF's request, Yale and Bristol-Myers Squibb jointly announced that they would permit the sale of generics in South Africa and that Bristol-Myers Squibb would lower the price of its brand-name stavudine by 96 percent throughout sub-Saharan Africa.

The Yale/Bristol-Myers Squibb announcement was highly significant in the campaign for access to affordable first-line AIDS treatments. Yale and Bristol-Myers Squibb's humanitarian action did not reduce licensing revenues with respect to Yale. Meanwhile, Yale's invention to this day continues to save thousands of lives. According to a recent report by the WHO's AIDS Medicines and Diagnostics Service, stavudine is one of the three first-line HIV medicines that together constituted almost 90 percent of total procurement in 2005.

Unfortunately, this has been an isolated success story rather than the road to greater access for the many important inventions that come out of publicly funded research institutions.

With respect to HIV/AIDS treatment alone, at least two major drugs based on university inventions have come to market since the 2001 stavudine announcement: emtricitabine, developed in large part at Emory University and sold by Gilead Sciences as Emtriva; and T-20 developed in large part at Duke University and marketed as Fuzeon by Hoffmann-La Roche and Trimeris. Just this summer, Yale University announced the license of a new candidate for an AIDS drug based on stavudine. Called ``4'-ethynyl-stavudine'', (or abbreviated more simply as Ed4T). Early testing suggests that it may be both more effective and less toxic than its famous predecessor.

But the question is: Will these lifesaving drugs ultimately be available in places like sub-Saharan Africa, where HIV infection rates range as high as a third of the adult population?

This bill, the Public Research in the Public Interest Act of 2006, would focus on this problem. By allowing licensing by generic companies of inventions coming out of publicly funded research institutions--and other associated inventions required to produce marketable medicines-- it would drive down the price of new, innovative drugs in areas where they would otherwise be effectively unavailable.

Because the licensing regime this bill proposes is self-enforcing, it minimizes both administrative overhead and eliminates the need for case-by-case decisions, while preserving important intellectual property protections. Because the Act allows the introduction of generic or reduced-price drugs only into markets too poor to otherwise afford them, its terms do not threaten corporate investments or profits in wealthy nations. All generic drugs manufactured under the bill must be clearly differentiated from the versions sold in developed nations, where the brand-name companies make their profits.

Moreover, publicly funded research institutions would receive royalties from the sale of inventions covered by this bill in developing markets. While the initial payment of the royalties will typically go to the research institution itself, the bill leaves complete freedom to these institutions and their licensee to decide how such royalties will ultimately be shared. This freedom is especially important because the inventions from universities and other research institutions often form only one part of the collection of intellectual property necessary to manufacture a finished, marketable drug. The appropriate division of the royalties paid by generics for this package of rights in the developing world will be different for different drugs and medical devices, depending on whether the university's contribution is more or less central to the finished product. This Act would allow all the various parties the flexibility to divide these royalties appropriately.

I should be clear, however, that the bill I introduce today is an initial proposal. I look forward to working with research universities in the United States on this important matter. I also intend to work with the companies involved in creating, licensing, and bringing to market the fruits of America's unparalleled research institutions as we continue to shape this solution.

Indeed, the best answer may not be legislative at all, if the groups involved can come together around a different approach. But however it is achieved, I believe that increasing the availability of the many medical inventions that come from publicly funded research centers is a good solution to pressing global health concerns.

Universities, in particular, are unique institutions with unique public commitments. They are, before anything else, institutions dedicated to the creation and dissemination of knowledge in the public interest. The Public Research in the Public Interest Act of 2006 is designed in the spirit of that commitment.

This bill completes a package of six bills that I have recently introduced to increase access to medicines in the United States and to address the global public health crisis. While it is the magnitude of this problem that demands that we, as a Nation, take action, it is the small things, the individual stories that often speak to us most clearly at a personal level.

In my office hangs a photograph I took of three young boys on the side of a mountain in Turkey. I found them flying a kite off the edge of a cliff that overlooks a vast slum. They had made the toy out of scraps of paper, patched together with tape and string, and were flying it on the currents rushing up the face of the rock.

I recalled fearing for their safety as they played so precariously close to the edge. But these children faced much greater risks. When my grandchildren get sick, we can always be sure they will get the medicines they need. For these boys, there is no such guarantee.

These boys, and the millions of children and others like them around the world are the reason behind each of the six bills I have introduced.

Earlier this summer, I introduced a bill which can be the catalyst for empowering U.S. generic companies to save the lives or improve the health of millions of families in impoverished nations. Under the ``Life-Saving Medicines Export Act,'' U.S. companies can make low-cost generic versions of any medicine for export to impoverished nations that face public health crises when those impoverished nations cannot produce those life-saving medicines for themselves.

This bill is based on World Trade Organization agreements permitting nations with pharmaceutical industries to help nations in need. The World Health Assembly and the World Health Organization have adopted resolutions urging all WTO member nations with a generic capability to adopt laws that

implement that agreement. On December 6, 2005, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative announced that it ``welcomes'' efforts to ``allow countries to override patent rights when necessary to export lifesaving drugs to developing countries that face public health crises but cannot produce drugs for themselves.''

This bill addresses the urgent needs of millions of low-income families in impoverished nations while protecting the interests of the patent owners of these life-saving medicines. As in the Public Research in the Public Interest Act, introduced today, generic companies are only permitted to use the compulsory license in the bill in developing nations, where low-income families are simply too poor to purchase the ``brand-name'' versions, and the generic versions must be clearly marked as not for resale in developed nations. Thus, both bills pose the risk of minimal losses for patent holders while generating new revenue for the brand-name companies from the royalties on generic sales.

The four additional bills that complete this ``Access to Medicines'' package seek to preserve incentives for U.S. generic companies to enter and compete in the market. Increased competition leads to lower prices and saved lives.

First, in the wake of the Supreme Court refusal to hear the drug patent case called Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Schering-Plough, I joined fellow Judiciary Committee members--Senators Kohl, Grassley and Schumer--in introducing legislation to explicitly prohibit brand-name drug manufacturers from using pay-off agreements to keep cheaper generic equivalents off the market. Such payments are a distortion in the market that harms patients. I was stunned that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a case so important to our senior citizens. The Federal Trade Commission asked the Supreme Court to hear the arguments but the Court refused at the request of the Justice Department. It seems there may be no justice--until that bill is passed--for our seniors needing costly patented medicines but live where the brand-name company has paid generic companies not to compete.

Then, in July, I joined Senators Rockefeller and Schumer in introducing legislation to ban ``authorized generics'' that can stifle true generic competition. I said at the time that ``the giant drug companies keep coming up with ways to avoid real competition and consumers need to be able to count on Congress to close each new anticompetitive loophole they come up with.'' If enacted, that bill will close this anti-competitive loophole in the Hatch-Waxman Act and will preserve the incentives Congress created for generic companies to enter the market to supply American citizens and seniors with lower- cost drugs.

The fifth bill introduced was with Senator Kohl. That bill is intended to stop frivolous Citizen Petitions designed to delay introduction of generic drugs into the market place. Recently, large pharmaceutical companies have exploited that petition process to keep their profits high. In addition, I joined with Senators Schumer, Clinton and Stabenow on the Access to LifeSavings Medicine Act which related to developing a fast-track process for approving generic versions of biologic medicines.

I want to thank Stacy Kern-Scheerer with Senate Legislative Counsel who provided very helpful guidance under extreme pressure in drafting this short, but complex bill. She and Bill Baird, also with Senate Legislative Counsel, did a great job with a rapid turnaround.

I believe that these six bills, together, can save millions of lives. Recognizing the great need, there have been significant voluntary efforts made by brand-name pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and nonprofits who have already donated life-saving medicines, time, personnel and money to help in the fight against deadly diseases both in America and abroad. I commend and greatly appreciate those efforts. Nonetheless, much remains to be done. My bills will both add to and complement existing efforts, by making sure even cutting edge treatments are available in developing countries, and by ensuring that America's aid dollars and the contributions of private philanthropists are used as efficiently as they can possibly be used.

The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Report to Congress reported that ``[i]n every case generics prices present an opportunity for cost savings; in some cases, the branded price per pack of a drug is up to 11 times the cost of the approved generic version.''

The current global public health crisis is one of the great callings of our time. As a nation, we cannot afford to ignore this threat. Our own health and aspects of our national security depend on it.

We have become far more aware today of how much our own health depends on what takes place half a world away. Whether it is AIDS, SARS, West Nile Virus, the Avian Flu, or the encroaching menace of multi-drug resistant bacteria, we are all at risk. We are only an airplane flight away from wherever an outbreak may occur--a place where the medical innovations developed in this country to combat these devastating diseases may not be available to keep the outbreak under control.

In a post-9/11 world, our well-being is intimately connected with that of other nations. Health is an essential building block for a strong economy, and vital to maintain a thriving democracy. Through increasing access to essential medicines throughout the world, the United States can help to give developing nations a chance to flourish, while improving U.S. relations with large segments of the world's population.

President Franklin Roosevelt once said: ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough, for those who have little.''

We are fortunate, at some times and on some issues, to be able to do both. Now is one of those times, and this is one of those issues. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting my efforts this year on the global public health crisis, including today's addition, the Public Research in the Public Interest Act of 2006.

Mr. President, I move to waive the budget point of order on the appropriate sections of this pending legislation.

Mr. President, I want my colleagues to understand that if this budget point of order is not waived, this legislation that we have been working on for a period of 8 months, and should have been passed in July--probably should have been passed in May, but for sure in July, and here we are still doing it--will not be passed.

I want to comment on why, without hearing my colleague yet--and going before him, but anticipating from some statements that have been in the press--why he is wrong about his point of order against this legislation.

Earlier today, there were comments made by my Republican colleague regarding the tax extenders bill. I would like to take a few minutes to clarify the record regarding the tax extenders bill.

Three points:

First is the claim that tax cuts are a budget buster, that it is tax cuts that are putting us in the red. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have seen tax receipts going up by a record amount. From 2004 to 2005, receipts went from $1.8 trillion to $2.1 trillion. The calculators at the Treasury needed new batteries to count the new dollars coming in this year, increasing from $2.1 trillion to $2.4 trillion--an 11.8-percent increase. These tax receipts far outpace what was projected in the budget, and, most importantly, the budget resolution we are currently operating under.

The bottom line: Taxpayers are sending checks to the Treasury well over $100 billion in excess of what was expected under the budget resolution. We are now taking action to prevent what is effectively a tax increase. I never thought I would hear a Republican advocating we ought to have a tax increase. If we do not pass this legislation, 19 million people are going to have tax increases.

And let my colleagues absolutely be clear in understanding that failure to pass this legislation, then, is not just about nothing, it is about allowing tax increases to go into effect. And they would go into effect without even a vote of the Congress. Taxpayers, then, will be writing checks even bigger than this unexpected amount of money that is coming into the Treasury already, if this legislation does not pass. Teachers, parents of college students, working families will all have to dig deeper into their pockets to pay for out-of-control spending in Washington.

Taxes are pouring into the Treasury. As I said earlier, it is not for the lack of tax receipts that we are seeing a deficit. It is because of the inability to control spending. In my time here in Washington, DC, I have never seen that the way to control spending is to keep taxes high. Higher taxes is a license to spend more money. And that is borne out by the facts. While tax receipts have gone up 11.8 percent in 2005-2006, spending has increased 8.6 percent.

It is important for my colleagues to also understand that much of the tax cuts that are in the tax extender package were expected to be included in the $70 billion tax cuts passed in the budget resolution-- the budget resolution out of the Budget Committee.

I find it extremely frustrating that those who come to the floor and decry this bill fail to note it is because we made room for other priorities, priorities they championed, such as capital gains and dividend cuts in the tax reconciliation bill, that we were unable to include the tax extender provisions in that reconciliation bill last spring. And it is for that reason that we now have to consider an extender bill.

It reminds me of the fellow who complains about not being able to get a BLT sandwich after he ate all the bacon. And speaking of bacon, one of the major pork products, I would now like to turn to the second point: the discussion on the floor earlier about earmarks.

I know my colleagues who serve on the Appropriations Committee have familiarity with the term ``earmark.'' Earmark is something that goes to one individual or one company. That is not what this bill is about. But they have tried to characterize it that way. This bill provides tax relief, and these provisions provide tax relief that is not for one individual or one company. They are not earmarks.

For example, the deduction for tuition will help--let me take a State at random. Let's take New Hampshire as an example. It helped 23,124 taxpayers in the year 2004. These tax policies, then, are not earmarks when you are helping 23,000 taxpayers in New Hampshire. And failure to extend the tax extenders means that these taxpayers are going to have an increase in taxes.

Earlier we heard on the Senate floor discussion about a tax provision that benefited songwriters. Again, this is not an earmark. As most Members who have been to a record store recently are aware, there is more than one songwriter in this country. But I raise the songwriter provision to respond to another point, which is that there are provisions in this bill that because of the Senate rules, Members will be prevented from effectively raising concerns.

The songwriter provision, supported by several Members on both sides of the aisle, was voted on by Members earlier this year in the tax reconciliation bill. It already passed the Senate. The extenders bill is now making that provision permanent. Members had ample opportunity to raise concerns about this provision when it was considered 6 months ago. Not a discouraging note was heard. In fact, colleagues who discussed this provision earlier today actually voted for the legislation that contained the songwriter provision. Talk about saying one thing and doing another. So I think those who sang the first verse earlier in the year should be cautious about complaining that we are now singing the second verse.

Finally, I want to comment about the point raised on the sales tax deduction. Again, you call that an earmark, when people in nine States who would not be able to deduct their State sales tax from their Federal income tax have the opportunity to do it? It is affecting 10 million people, and that is an earmark? I find the statements made about the sales tax to be of concern and a misrepresentation of policy.

First, my colleagues earlier heard complaints about the cost of the sales tax provision but then in the same breath complain that the sales tax provision does not cost enough, that the sales tax provision's flaw is it should be expanded to both itemizers and nonitemizers, which then would cost billions more.

The easy answer is that the intent is to roughly mirror the deduction for State income tax that residents of the rest of the States have. The State income tax deduction is only for itemizers. So why would you want the sales tax deduction to be expanded to include nonitemizers?

Second, the deduction for sales tax is only allowed in lieu of a deduction for the income tax. So the benefits that it provides to residents of States such as New York and California, who have both a State income tax and sales tax, is limited. But it does certainly provide real benefits to taxpayers who live in States without a State income tax but do have a State sales tax.

The provision means that the Federal Tax Code will not treat similarly situated taxpayers differently based on how the State decides to raise revenue. The Finance Committee has seen no evidence that States have responded to this provision by raising the sales tax.

I appreciate the opportunity to clear the record and separate facts from fantasy when it comes to this tax extender bill. These are important provisions that we need to act on now to ensure that taxpayers can properly file their tax returns and receive much-needed tax relief.

Finally, the Congressional Budget Office has scored the total health package as costing $1.7 billion over 5 years. The $1.7 billion stems from the cost the Congressional Budget Office has attributed to making the Recovery Audit Contractor Demonstration a permanent part of the Medicare Program and implementing it on a nationwide basis.

The 3-year demonstration project was authorized in the Medicare Prescription Drug Act of 3 years ago and requires the Center for Medicare Services to contract with the recovery audit contractors to detect Medicare overpayments and underpayments and to recoup overpayments. Typical overpayments involve improper coding or billing for services for which there is no medical necessity. Also, Medicare inadvertently pays for services when another payer, such as a worker's comp or auto insurance, should be a primary payer.

Despite being implemented for a limited time in three States, this demonstration has already shown enormous potential for the identification of overpayments and underpayments and the recoupment of overpayments. In fiscal year 2006, this demonstration identified around $300 million in improper payments in three States. It is estimated that implementing this program on a permanent basis nationwide would result in approximately $8 billion in recovered funds being returned to the Medicare trust funds over 5 years. And somebody is bellyaching about investing $1.7 billion to bring back $8 billion.

CBO has assigned a cost to this provision because of a budget scoring rule--some scoring rule that somebody ought to do something about-- called rule 14, which says that ``no increase in receipts or decrease in direct spending will be scored as a result of provision of a law that provides direct spending for the administration or program management activities.'' As a result, even though they are real and substantial, savings from this program will not be recognized for budget purposes.

Despite the potential of a budget point of order, we have included this provision in the package because it is simply good policy. It will recover billions that would otherwise be wasted in the Medicare Program--some of it fraudulently wasted. For all these years, Medicare has not been able to effectively detect payment errors. The nationwide adoption of this program will result in real savings for the Medicare Program and, ultimately, the taxpayers.

Mr. President, I wish to talk briefly about the issue of Red Cross reform. The Red Cross is one of the great institutions in this country. It is supported by millions of Americans with their volunteer work and contributions. Americans have a right to expect the best from this proud organization.

On Monday, I shared with leadership staff on both sides of the aisle as well as interested members copies of legislation that brings much needed reform to the governance of the Red Cross. The Red Cross is congressionally chartered and therefore any reforms to the governance require changes in statute.

As many of my colleagues know, I have been active in oversight of the Red Cross since problems came to light with the organization after the tragedy of 9/11. However, it was after the Katrina hurricane that it became evident that fundamental change was needed in how the organization was managed and governed.

In response to my oversight, the Chairman of the Board Ms. Bonnie McElveen-Hunter called for an Independent Governance Advisory Board. I thank her for her leadership and responsiveness to the concerns raised.

This board recently issued its report ``American Red Cross Governance for the 21st Century'' which can be found on their website. This report is based on the fine work of its Chair, Karen Hastie Williams as well as Peter Clapman, Professor Charles Elson, Margaret Foran, Professor Jay W. Lorsch, Patricia McGuire and Professor Paul Neuhauser. I thank them all for their service.

The legislation that I shared with colleagues on Monday is based on the findings of the report from the Independent Governance Advisory Board which was approved by the Red Cross Board of Governors and released to the public on October 30, 2006.

The legislation deals with such vital issues as the size and role of the board; the characteristics of who should serve on the board; the role of cabinet members in Red Cross governance; the creation of an ombudsman; the responsibilities of the Government Accountability Office and many other important matters.

However, while the statutory changes are important, much of the hard work of changing the culture and governance of the Red Cross will have to be done by the management and board of the Red Cross. I expect them to look to the findings of the report as a close guide for their actions on the details.

I am hopeful that this legislation, which has the support of the Red Cross, can be passed by unanimous consent quickly so that we can have in place a Red Cross that has effective and modern leadership for this Nation.

However, I am deeply discouraged that despite the fact that this legislation has been cleared for several days on the Republican side it still has not been cleared on the Democratic side, and this despite the fact that the legislation has been originally cosponsored by Democrat Senators Kennedy, Landrieu and Akaka as well as Senators on this side of the aisle, Santorum, Enzi, Isakson, Martinez and Dole. As my colleagues all know, Senator Dole was the former President of the Red Cross. I am pleased to have all their support.

But I am very frustrated that I have received no response or courtesies from the Democrat leadership of why this commonsense and needed legislation cannot be passed.

I have been informed that staff in the other body have stated to Red Cross officials that they do not want to pass this legislation because they want it to be an early victory for the new Congressional leadership. I do not want to believe that that is the reason why there is no action on these reforms.

The failure to act on these reforms is having a very real and very negative impact on the vital work of the Red Cross. I met with the Chairman of the Board of the Red Cross just two days ago and she informed me that the failure to pass this legislation quickly is hurting their efforts to successfully recruit and bring into place a new CEO. In addition, the needed changes to the governance structure at the Red Cross are also frustrated by the failure to make the necessary statutory changes.

We saw with Katrina the need for strong leadership and governance at the Red Cross. The Red Cross has taken the right steps to make reforms, reforms that will lead to better service for the American people in times of need. The Democrat leadership should be placing those same priorities first. I call on them to allow us to go forward with passing this legislation.

Mr. President, in connection with H.R. 6111, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has made available to the public the following document: Joint Committee on Taxation, Technical Explanation of HR. 6408, The ``Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006,'' as Introduced in the House on December 7, 2006--(JCX-50-06)--December 7, 2006. This technical explanation expresses the Senate Finance Committee's understanding of the tax and other provisions of the bill and serves as a useful reference in understanding the legislative intent behind this important legislation.

Senator Domenici wants a few minutes. How much time do I have?

The Senator can have 2 minutes.

I will give 4 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. President, I would like to discuss a tax policy matter that is important to several Senators. Although it is not a priority for me, I pursued the issue for those Senators during the ``trailer'' bill negotiations. On my side of the aisle, the interested Senators included Senators Smith, Lott, Cornyn, Dole, Graham, and Vitter. I know Senators on the other side of the aisle have similar interests, including Senators Lincoln, Pryor, Landrieu, Cantwell, and Murray.

Under current law, the tax treatment of capital gain income from timber activities varies. The variance depends to a great degree on the form of the business entity that holds the timber. The top individual capital gain rate of 15 percent applies to capital gain from timber if the timber is held by pass-through entities. By contrast, capital gains from timber held by regular ``C'' corporations are taxed at the top corporate rate of 35 percent.

Senators Smith and Lincoln filed an amendment for the Finance Committee reconciliation tax relief markup last year. The amendment aimed at addressing the differential treatment of timber capital gains among entities. A form of that amendment was included in the first round of negotiations on the trailer bill. The final form of the trailer bill agreement did not include the timber capital gains amendment.

Since this issue was not fully resolved, and many Members remain strongly interested in the issue I would like to ask my friend, the ranking Democrat and incoming chairman, Senator Baucus, if he plans to further examine the issue in the next Congress.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Haiti trade provisions in this legislation. And I want to respond to some of the criticisms leveled at these provisions.

Right now over two-thirds of Haitian apparel exports to the United States are made from fabric made in either the United States or a beneficiary country under the Caribbean Basin Initiative.

Under the bill, it is true that Haiti can use fabric from third countries to produce apparel exports for duty-free entry into the United States.

But to be eligible for such duty-free treatment, at least 50 percent of the value of the apparel must be attributable to Haiti, the United States, or another regional qualifying country.

If, for example, Chinese-origin fabric is used to manufacture apparel in Haiti, only the value of the cutting and sewing counts toward the 50-percent

value-added requirement. The value of the Chinese fabric itself does not count toward the requirement.

And because fabric generally accounts for more than 50 percent of the value of a garment, the 50-percent value-added requirement will often mean that qualifying apparel must be made from fabric produced in a regional qualifying country to be eligible for preferential treatment.

Moreover, the benefits are capped in the first year at 1 percent of United States apparel imports, which is less than current apparel imports from Haiti and equal to only 20 percent of the total level provided under the African Growth and Opportunity Act.

Now, the bill does include a tariff preference level, but it is limited to woven apparel, not knits. And the level of the tariff preference level is equal to only 0.23 percent of United States apparel imports.

The Commissioner of Customs wrote a letter to Chairman Thomas of the House Committee on Ways and Means stating that Customs remains committed to enforcing all textile trade laws. The Commissioner further indicated that Customs can, and will, enforce the textile provisions in this bill if they become law.

The bottom line is that the Haiti trade provisions in this bill will help to spur economic growth and prosperity in the most impoverished country in this hemisphere. At the same time, these provisions do not threaten to significantly impact our domestic industry in an adverse manner.

In addition, these provisions have been endorsed by a number of non- governmental organizations, including Oxfam America and the International Policy Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

I urge my colleagues to support the Haiti legislation, as well as the other trade provisions in this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be printed at the appropriate place in the Congressional Record, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will reserve the remainder of my time.

I should have 2 minutes left. I gave the Senator from Louisiana 4.

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

Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce with Senator Santorum the Hospital Payment Improvement and Equity Act, which will provide an increased reimbursement for acute care hospitals and inpatient rehabilitation facilities that are disadvantaged by Medicare payments under the Medicare area wage index reclassification system.

For a considerable period of time, there have been a number of counties in Pennsylvania that have been suffering from low Medicare reimbursements, which has caused them great disadvantage because their nurses, and other medical personnel are moving to surrounding areas. I refer specifically to Luzerne County, Lackawanna County, Wyoming County, Lycoming County, and Columbia County in northeastern Pennsylvania. Those counties are surrounded by MSAs, metropolitan statistical areas, in Newport, NY, to the north; in Allentown to the southeast; and the Harrisburg MSA to the southwest. As these counties are surrounded by MSAs with higher Medicare reimbursements, a flight of very necessary medical personnel has occurred. More recently, western Pennsylvania has been faced with Medicare reimbursement that has not kept pace with the rising cost of healthcare placing a tremendous burden on these facilities to provide good jobs at competitive wages.

It has also come to my attention that inpatient rehabilitation facilities are not provided an opportunity to obtain equitable Medicare reimbursement. Inpatient rehabilitation facilities receive adjustments in their Medicare reimbursement due to geographic disadvantages within the Medicare inpatient prospective payment system. This is based on information gathered from other acute care facilities in the MSA, not from their own wage information. Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities, further, cannot apply for reclassification to another MSA that reflects their labor costs. This has prevented those facilities from being eligible for increased funding to assist with wages like acute care facilities, while being forced to compete for employees with those facilities that have had access to increased funding.

I have worked to find a solution to this problem for a number of years. During the conference for the fiscal year 2002 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill, the conferees agreed that there should be relief for these areas in Pennsylvania that were surrounded by areas that had higher MSA ratings. However, at the last minute, there was an objection to including language in the conference report.

To correct this problem I, with Representatives Sherwood and English, brought the matter forward in the Fiscal Year 2002 Supplemental Appropriations bill. They worked to include language in the House version of the bill and I filed an amendment to the Senate bill. During conference negotiations my amendment was defeated and the provisions were not included.

As part the Fiscal Year 2004 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations, I provided $7 million for hospitals in Northeast Pennsylvania that continued to be disadvantaged by the Medicare area wage index reclassification. This was provided as temporary assistance for those facilities.

During the consideration of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, I met with Finance Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus about the bill provisions, including the need for a solution to the Medicare area wage index reclassification problem in Pennsylvania. As a result, Section 508 was included in the bill, which provides increased funding for hospitals nationally to be reclassified to locations with higher Medicare reimbursement rates for three years at $300 million per year. The temporary program, which began in April 2004 and will expire April 2007, has and will provide Pennsylvania hospitals $69 million over that time, $23 million per year.

Most recently, as part of the Senate Fiscal Year 2007 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill, I provided $4.3 million for hospitals in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre and Williamsport areas that have been harmed by the ongoing wage index problem. Further, on June 14, 2006, 20 other Senators joined me in sending a letter to Finance Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus in support of Senate action to extend Section 508.

As the Section 508 program is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2007, and the low Medicare area wage index reimbursement is still being unfairly placed on many Pennsylvania hospitals, the legislation I am introducing would extend the current Section 508 benefit to those who are currently receiving funding and to those who deserved funds under the previous competition for this funding.

The legislation builds on the Section 508 Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, by providing hospitals who continue to be disadvantaged by low Medicare reimbursement an increase in funding. The bill would allow both acute care hospitals and not-for- profit inpatient rehabilitation facilities apply for funding in a similar manner as set up under Section 508. Facilities that meet specific wage and geographic criteria will receive a three year reclassification.

Under the Section 508, program a number of hospitals meet the necessary criteria to receive reclassification, however, inadequate funding of $300 million per year for the program was provided. As a result, 154 additional hospitals did not receive this vital funding. Under this legislation, sufficient funds would be provided to allow all facilities that meet wage and geographic criteria to receive reclassification funding.

To remedy the under-funding of impatient rehabilitation facilities, not for profit facilities will be eligible for funding through this program. If all acute care hospitals in an MSA apply for and receive funding through this program, or have sole community hospital status, or have reclassified to another MSA through another mechanism, then non-profit inpatient rehabilitation facilities in that MSA are eligible. Those rehabilitation facilities will be reclassified to the MSA where a majority of other hospitals from the same MSA have been reclassified.

For those hospitals who received funding under the current Section 508; they will have received the benefit of a higher wage index for three years, April 1 , 2004-March 1, 2007. These higher wages will be included in the hospitals' cost reports and be reflected in the data used to calculate a future wage index. It has always been the hope that this increased funding would enable these hospitals to pay higher wages and subsequently see an increase in the area wage index.

The problem with the wage index system is the use of three year-old audited cost report data for the calculation of the wage index. Therefore, a full year of Section 508 money from fiscal year 2004 will first be seen in the fiscal year 2008 wage index calculation. For hospitals that end their fiscal year on June 30, that wage data will not be included in their wage index calculation until fiscal year 2009. To reclassify, three years of data is needed to show the proper evidence for eligibility. Thus, the full effect of the Section 508 funding will flow through the wage index system by fiscal year 2011. For this reason, additional funding is needed for the next three years in order for these disadvantaged hospitals to continue paying competitive salaries to their employees.

Under Section 508, 121 hospitals have and will receive $900 million in assistance, while this is a significant amount of funding, it did not fix the problem of low Medicare wage reimbursement. A long term solution to this problem is needed, however the current Section 508 funding will expire on March 31, 2007 and additional funding is needed for these facilities while we work to find that solution. The loss of hospitals and jobs due to unfair CMS reimbursement is unacceptable.

The hospitals which face this low Medicare reimbursement are in great financial distress. These are hospitals which are serving an aging population

in northeastern Pennsylvania and across the nation. This legislation provides Medicare reimbursement assistance for those facilities and ensures Medicare beneficiaries' access to care. I encourage my colleagues to work with Senator Santorum and me to move this legislation forward promptly.

Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2006. This legislation would subject the insurance industry to the antitrust laws, which apply to almost every other industry in America.

Congress enacted the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945. It did so in response to a controversial Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the business of insurance constituted interstate commerce. The ruling opened the door to federal regulation of insurance, a business that had historically been regulated by the States. Reacting to concern from the states that they would no longer have authority to collect taxes on insurance premiums, Congress passed McCarran-Ferguson, which reaffirmed the power of the States to regulate insurance and collect taxes.

In doing so, Congress exempted insurance industry practices from the antitrust laws to the extent that such practices are ``regulated by state law.'' Since then, the courts have liberally interpreted the phrase ``regulated by state law.'' They have held that insurance industry practices are exempt from the antitrust laws so long as regulators have been given jurisdiction over the challenged practices-- regardless of whether the regulators ever exercise that jurisdiction.

Over the years, State regulators have either chosen not to regulate, or failed to regulate, practices that would have violated the antitrust laws absent McCarran-Ferguson. With McCarran-Ferguson, such practices escape both regulatory and federal antitrust oversight. The most notorious practices to come to light involved bid-rigging and customer allocation by insurance broker, Marsh & McClennan, and several of the nation's largest insurers, including AIG and Zurich American Insurance Company. Under the scheme, Marsh steered unsuspecting clients to insurers with which it had lucrative payoff agreements. To make the scheme work, Marsh solicited fictitious bids from other complicit insurers to make the bid submitted by the selected insurer--the one that offered Marsh the highest payoff--seem competitive.

Even though the scheme eliminated competition among the insurance companies that were involved, those companies could not be prosecuted under Federal antitrust law. Several States prosecuted the insurance companies

under a variety of State laws, including antitrust laws, but federal prosecutors could not bring their significant resources to bear. There simply is no justification for that. Federal law enforcement should have the power to prosecute such blatant violations of the antitrust laws.

This is not the first attempt to subject the insurance industry to Federal antitrust law. In the wake of numerous insolvencies, mismanagement and other misconduct by insurers in the late 1980s, legislation was introduced repealing the exemption. That legislation, introduced by Congressman Brooks, faced opposition from insurers who claimed that many industry practices engaged in jointly by insurance companies were pro-competitive and necessary for smaller insurers. The legislation provided a safe harbor, specifically listing the practices of insurance companies that would be exempt from the antitrust laws. However, it proved impossible to craft a list of safe harbors for all the information that competing insurers claimed they needed to share with one another. This bill has avoided that problem.

More recently, some have argued that the answer to insurance industry ills is full federal regulation. I do not necessarily believe that stripping the States of their authority to regulate the insurance industry is the answer. This bill does not do that. It allows states to continue to regulate their insurance industries. However, the existence of state regulation is no reason to prevent the Federal Government from prosecuting violators of antitrust laws. And, there is no reason to prevent Federal prosecutors from going after those violators just because they happen to work for insurance companies.

As I've said, allowing Federal prosecutors to go after those who violate the antitrust laws will not prevent states from regulating the insurance industry. If a state is actively supervising practices by its insurance industry that might otherwise violate the antitrust laws, this legislation would exempt that practice from the antitrust laws. Antitrust law does not generally apply where a state is actively regulating an industry. This is as it should be and the legislation I introduce today, the Insurance Industry Antitrust Act of 2006, incorporates that standard.

The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on this issue in May.

During the hearing, Marc Racicot, the President of the American Insurance Association, a trade association composed of the nation's largest insurers, acknowledged that ``every State provides some form of antitrust regulation of insurers.'' In other words, many States already enforce their State antitrust laws with respect to insurers. So, I have to ask, why have we tied the hands of federal antitrust enforcers?

The insurers will argue that repealing the antitrust exemption for insurers will create uncertainty by throwing into question the legality of every joint practice engaged in by insurers. They will argue that the legality of each joint practice will have to be litigated in court. However, this bill has been drafted to avoid such litigation. Rather than incorporating a laundry list of safe harbors, an approach that was taken in the past, the bill would allow the Federal Trade Commission to issue guidelines identifying joint practices that do not raise antitrust concerns and would therefore not face scrutiny from antitrust enforcers.

This is a job for which the Commission is well equipped. In the past, the Commission along with the Justice Department issued ``Statements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Health Care.'' The Health Care Statements identified joint conduct by health care providers that did not raise antitrust concerns and therefore would likely escape scrutiny by antitrust enforcers. The Health Care Statements were designed to give health care providers certainty about the legality of their joint conduct under the antitrust laws. Similar guidelines for the insurance industry would provide insurers with certainty, but at the same time, would ensure that joint practices that are anticompetitive receive scrutiny from the antitrust enforcement agencies.

Although insurers oppose repeal of their antitrust exemption, others support a repeal. In particular, the Antitrust Section of the American Bar Association has long supported repeal. During the Judiciary Committee's hearing, the current head of the Antitrust Section, Donald Klawiter noted the Section's nearly 20-year history of supporting repeal. Klawiter testified that ``the benefits of antitrust exemptions almost never outweigh the potential harm imposed on society by the loss of competition.'' At the same hearing, Robert Hunter, testifying on behalf of the Consumer Federation of America, concluded that ``application of the antitrust laws to the insurance industry could result in double-digit savings for America's insurance consumers.''

It is my hope that this legislation will bring the benefits of competition to the insurance industry and to consumers. Too many consumers are paying too much for insurance due to the collusive atmosphere that exists in the insurance industry. This has become a particular problem along the Gulf Coast, where insurers have shared hurricane loss projections, which may result in double-digit premium increases for Gulf Coast homeowners.

I strongly urge members who are concerned about industry exemption from the antitrust laws and collusive insurance industry practices to support this important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to make the tax laws more fair for America's primary and secondary school teachers.

Our public school teachers are some of the unheralded heroes of our society.

These women and men dedicate their careers to educating the young people of America.

School teachers labor in often difficult and even dangerous circumstances. In most places, including in my home State of Utah, the salary of the average public school teacher is significantly below the national average.

A historic turnover is taking place in the teaching profession. While student enrollments are rising rapidly, more than a million veteran teachers are nearing retirement.

Experts predict that overall we will need more than two million new teachers in the next decade.

This teacher recruitment problem has reached crisis proportions in some urban and rural areas. The shortage is most acute in high-need subject areas such as math, science, and technology.

Retaining qualified teachers in the schools is only part of the puzzle. Attracting new teachers in math, science, and technology is another. It is clear that our teacher recruitment problem represents one the biggest challenges America faces as we contemplate how we are going to prepare the next generation to take their places in our society and in our economy.

Unfortunately, these problems of retention and recruitment of public school teachers are exacerbated by the unfair tax treatment these professionals currently receive under our tax law. Specifically, teachers find themselves greatly disadvantaged by the lack of deductibility of professional development expenses and of the out-of- pocket costs of classroom materials that practically all teachers find themselves supplying. Let me explain.

As many other professionals, most elementary and secondary school teachers regularly incur expenses to keep themselves current in their field of knowledge. These include subscriptions to journals and other periodicals as well as the cost of courses and seminars designed to improve their knowledge or teaching skills. These expenditures are necessary to keep our teachers up to date on the latest ideas, techniques, and trends so that they can provide our children with the best education possible.

Furthermore, almost all teachers find themselves providing basic classroom materials for their students. Because of tight education budgets, most schools do not provide 100 percent of the material teachers need to adequately present their lessons. As a result, dedicated teachers incur personal expenses for copies, art supplies, books, puzzles and games, paper, pencils, and countless other needs. If not for the willingness of teachers to purchase these supplies themselves, many students would simply go without needed materials.

I realize that employees in many fields of endeavor incur expenses for professional development and out-of-pocket expenses. In many cases, however, these costs are fully reimbursed by the employer. This is seldom the case with school teachers. Other professionals who are self- employed are able to fully deduct these types of expenses.

Under the current tax law, unreimbursed employee expenses are deductible generally, but only as miscellaneous itemized deductions. However,

there are two practical hurdles that effectively make these expenses non-deductible for most teachers.

The first hurdle is that the total amount of a taxpayer's deductible miscellaneous deductions must exceed two percent of adjusted gross income before they begin to be deductible.

The second hurdle is that the amount in excess of the two percent floor, if any, combined with all other deductions of the taxpayer, must exceed the standard deduction before the teacher can itemize. Only about a third of taxpayers have enough deductions to itemize.

The unfortunate effect of these two limitations is that, as a practical matter, only a small proportion of teachers are able to deduct their professional development and out-of-pocket supplies expenses.

Let me illustrate this unfair situation with an example.

Let us consider the case of a fifth-year high school English teacher in Utah whom I will call Alice White Head. Alice is single and earns $48,000 per year. Last year she incurred $1,050 for a course she took over the summer to increase her knowledge of English literature. She also spent $450 for classroom supplies out of her own pocket. She was not reimbursed for either of these expenses, which totaled $1,500, by her school district. Under current law, Alice's expenditures are deductible, subject to the limitations I mentioned. The first limitation is that her expenses must exceed two percent of her income before they begin to be deductible. Two percent of $48,000 is $960. Thus, only $540 of her $1,500 total expenses is deductible, that portion that exceeds $960.

As a single taxpayer, Alice's standard deduction for 2006 is $5,150. Her total itemized deductions, including the $540 in miscellaneous deductions for her professional expenses and out-of-pocket classroom supplies, fall short of the standard deduction threshold. Therefore, not even the $540 of the original $1,500 in professional development expenses and out-of-pocket costs are deductible for Alice. What the first limitation did not block, the second one did, and Alice gets no deduction at all under the current law.

The way I see it, this situation is just not fair. Also, the tax treatment of teacher's expenses certainly does not help solve our teacher retention and recruitment problems.

To help alleviate this long-standing problem, five years ago I introduced the Teacher Equity for School Teachers Act of 2001. This legislation would have provided an unlimited tax deduction for the out- of-pocket expenses of school teachers for classroom supplies and other needed materials to help a teacher do his or her job. The bill would have also allowed teachers to take a deduction for their professional development expenses.

Rather than being available only for those who are able to itemize their deductions, this bill would have made these expenses ``above-the- line'' deductions, meaning they would be deductible whether or not the teacher itemized on their tax return.

Unfortunately, only a part of this bill was enacted. The 2001 tax bill included an above-the-line deduction for $250 for the costs of classroom expenses. While this was a great step in the right direction, it did not go nearly far enough. Moreover, the provision has now expired, and it is not clear when Congress is going to extend it.

The bill I am introducing today would do three things. First, it would reinstate the above-the-line deduction for teachers' out-of- pocket expenses for classroom supplies, make it permanent, and remove the $250 cap. Second, it would provide an unlimited deduction for the professional development expenses for school teachers. Finally, to assist in the recruitment of teachers in the most needed fields, it would provide an unlimited deduction for the cost of professionals in the fields of math, science, and technology to certify to become public school teachers.

Under my bill, the Alice of my example would be allowed to deduct all $1,500 of her professional development and classroom supplies expenses, whether she itemized or not. This would help provide tax equity, and a measure of much-needed tax relief for an underpaid professional. It would also help retain current public school teachers and attract new ones to this vital field.

Some might argue that such a generous deduction would be giving teachers preferential treatment. I disagree.

Most organizations provide training for their employees that is fully deductible to the organization and non-taxable to the employee. Yet public teachers, who are some of the most important professionals in our society, are left to foot the bill for these needed costs on their own. Also, office supplies and instructional materials are fully deductible to businesses. Should not teachers who provide these similar materials for their classrooms be afforded the same tax treatment?

Others may question the wisdom of my bill granting an unlimited tax deduction. ``Why not place a limit or a cap on the amount that may be deducted?'' some might ask. Again, I respectfully disagree with such critics. It is important to keep in mind the differences between a tax deduction and a tax credit. My bill calls for tax deductions, which reduce the amount of income that is subject to tax, and not for a credit, which is a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the amount of tax that is due.

With a tax deduction, a public school teacher is not receiving a cash subsidy or reimbursement for his or her expenses. Rather, he or she is merely obtaining a reduction in the amount of income that is taxed. Thus, the most benefit the teacher would receive under my bill would be a 35 percent reduction in the cost of the professional development, supplies, or certification expenses. This means that the teacher is still responsible for paying for the biggest portion of these costs. I do not believe that our public school teachers will abuse such an unlimited deduction. They will use their common sense and they will spend the appropriate amounts for their expenses.

Support for mathematics and science education at all levels is necessary to improve the global competitiveness of the United States in science and energy technology.

I endorse the efforts of my some of my colleagues to encourage more of our best and brightest students choose these fields of study. Support for qualified STEM teachers (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) is equally important. If we are successful in increasing the supply for STEM students, we will need to increase the supply of STEM teachers.

This bill will provide incentives for these professionals to enter the teaching profession by allowing expenses in connection with teacher certification to be fully deductible, above-the-line, the same as the professional development and supplies expenses of teaching professionals.

Mr. President, this bill would provide modest tax equity for teachers who, for too long, have been footing the bill for improving the quality of teaching by themselves. It is time that Congress recognized this unfairness and corrected it.

I thank the Senate for the opportunity to address this issue today, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the REIT Investment Diversification and Empowerment Act of 2006 (RIDEA). This legislation would make a handful of relatively minor, but nonetheless important, changes to the tax rules governing Real Estate Investment Trusts to permit REITs to better meet the challenges of evolving market conditions and opportunities.

As most of my colleagues know, Real Estate Investment Trusts are companies that own, and in most cases, operate income-producing real estate. Congress created REITs in 1960 to give everyone the ability to invest in large-scale commercial properties in a very liquid way. The REIT industry has grown dramatically in size and importance to the U.S. economy since then, and in the last ten years in particular.

While the tax laws governing REITs are very good, from time to time they need to be modified to keep pace with the changes in the marketplace and in our economy. I am pleased to have supported, along with many of my colleagues, several tax bills that have been enacted in the past decade or so to modernize the tax treatment of Real Estate Investment Trusts.

Federal tax law requires that REITs meet specific tests regarding the composition of their gross income and assets. For example, 95 percent of their annual gross income must be from specified sources such as dividends, interests and rents, and 75 percent of their gross income must be from real estate-related sources. Similarly, at the end of each calendar quarter, 75 percent of a REIT's assets must consist of specified ``real estate'' assets. Consequently, REITs must derive a majority of their gross income from commercial real estate.

Failure to meet these tests can result in loss of REIT status, although with the enactment of the REIT Improvement Act in 2004, it may be possible for a REIT to pay a monetary penalty and bring itself into compliance in order to avoid such a result if the REIT can demonstrate reasonable cause for such failure.

Commercial real estate represents more than six percent of this country's gross domestic product and is a key generator of jobs and other economic activities. For example, REITs have invested over $1.2 billion in my home State of Utah and have thus been a major contributor to our robust economy. Over the past 46 years, Real Estate Investment Trusts have fulfilled

Congress' vision by making investments in large scale, capital intensive commercial real estate available to all investors.

Changes to the REIT rules that Congress has made in the past decade have allowed REITs to serve better their tenants while maximizing returns to REIT shareholders.

The bill I introduce today would further modify the REIT tax rules to conform to constantly evolving business realities, such as the growing importance of cross-border trade and the increased velocity of the competitive marketplace, while still focusing REITs on commercial real estate activities.

Specifically, the bill includes five titles.

The first would clarify the tax treatment of foreign currency gains attributable to overseas real estate investment. This is important as U.S. REITs continue to expand their investments overseas.

The second title would increase the permissible ownership of a REIT in a taxable REIT subsidiary to 25 percent from the current-law 20 percent. This change would bring the REIT rules into conformity with similar rules governing mutual funds.

Title III of the bill would update the safe harbor test for purposes of the 100 percent excise tax in relation to dealer sales. This would help REITs more prudently manage the timing and extent of their asset dispositions.

The bill's fourth title would conform the tax treatment of health care facilities to that of lodging facilities by treating as qualifying income rental payments attributable to a health care facility made to a REIT from a taxable REIT subsidiary. This change would allow health care REITs more flexibility.

Finally, the bill's fifth title would amend the REIT rules to provide that income from, and interests in, foreign-qualified REITs would be treated as qualifying REIT income and assets under the U.S. REIT rules under certain circumstances. This change is important because about 20 countries have now enacted legislation that closely resembles our REIT rules, and many U.S. REITs may wish to invest in a non-U.S. REIT. This would allow them to do so with a minimum of complexity.

I urge my colleagues to review this bill and lend their support to it. I realize that it is very late in the second session of the 109th Congress, and there is little time for us to consider newly-introduced tax bills. However, I hope to reintroduce this legislation in the next Congress if we do not get a chance to consider it this year.

I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the REIT Investment Diversification and Empowerment Act and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to see H.R. 6111, the Tax Extender Act before us today. This legislation includes some very important provisions that extend retroactively several expired tax benefits that have been instrumental to keeping our economy growing and helping to provide tax equity to certain members of our society.

Many of my colleagues on the Finance Committee have joined me in supporting Chairman Grassley's tireless efforts this year to extend these provisions since even before they expired on December 31 of last year. Unfortunately, our several attempts to do so were thwarted by difficult political circumstances that required that the extender package be deferred until now.

It is amazing to me, and undoubtedly very puzzling to Utahns and Americans across the country, that a set of provisions that enjoys nearly universal support in the Senate and in the House of Representatives should be so difficult to pass. However, I am very glad to see that we have finally been able to push the extension of these important tax benefits across the finish line.

First and foremost on the list of expired tax provisions that are extended in this bill is the credit for increasing research activities. The so-called research credit has been instrumental in this country in not only providing incentives for conducting an increasing amount of R&D among American companies, but also in keeping that research activity in this country in an environment where incentives to move research offshore are proliferating.

Because so many of our trading partners are now offering generous tax and other incentives in an attempt to lure away U.S.-conducted research, extending the research credit is of paramount importance just so we can keep ahead of the competition.

Some may question the value of a retroactive extension of the research credit, particularly when it has been expired for nearly a year. After all, it is difficult to argue that a retroactively provided incentive can have any real incentive effect, since the activity it is designed to induce has already taken place. I am very happy that my colleagues have recognized there is another important factor at work here.

Practically all of my colleagues agree with me that the research credit would be more effective if it were made permanent. Senator Baucus and I and others of our colleagues have long worked and argued for making the credit permanent. Indeed, in 2001 the Senate passed a permanent research credit, but it was unfortunately dropped in conference with the House.

However, because we have almost always extended the research credit seamlessly, it has become a sort of de facto permanent credit. And while a de facto permanent research credit is not as good as a de jure permanent research credit, there are certain benefits that we get from having even an expiring credit always available. I believe that because the credit has been retroactively extended every year, except for one, it is more effective in inducing research activities. I also believe that businesses in Utah and all over America have come to depend on the research credit being extended each year without a gap. Therefore, I believe that it is important to once again retroactively extend the credit to keep the faith that we have allowed to be built up around this tax benefit. Therefore, I am very pleased to see that the credit has once again been extended, retroactive to its expiration date last year.

The legislation before us also includes the extension of some other important expired tax provisions. One important provision included in this bill is the retroactive extension of the deduction for school teachers for classroom expenses that they incur. As a major proponent of this legislation for many years, I was extremely pleased to see this provision included in the final bill.

Our public school teachers are some of the unheralded heroes of our society. School teachers labor in often difficult and even dangerous circumstances. A historic turnover is taking place in the teaching profession. Unfortunately, these professionals receive an unfair tax treatment under our tax law. Specifically, teachers find themselves greatly disadvantaged by the lack of deductibility of professional development expenses and of the out-of-pocket costs of classroom materials that practically all teachers find themselves supplying. Furthermore, almost all teachers find themselves providing basic classroom materials for their students. Because of tight education budgets, most schools do not provide 100 percent of the material teachers need to adequately present their lessons. As a result, dedicated teachers incur personal expenses for copies, art supplies, books, puzzles and games, paper, pencils, and countless other needs. If not for the willingness of teachers to purchase these supplies themselves, many students would simply go without needed materials.

I am pleased to see that this bill includes an extension of a teacher's tax credit which will help teachers, in some small way, to cope with these challenges and inequities. I believe much more must be done. That is why, earlier this year, I introduced the Tax Equity for School Teachers Act of 2006, S. 4027. S. 4027 will not only expand the tax credit teachers can take for school supplies, but also provide them a tax credit which will defer some of the increasing cost of training. I am hopeful we will be able to act on legislation similar to S. 4027 next Congress, but I am very pleased to see this basic tax credit for teachers extended once again this Congress.

I thank the Senate for the opportunity to address this issue today, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I also applaud the leadership for including a retroactive extension of the provision offering a 15-year cost recovery period for certain leasehold and restaurant improvements. Failure to do so would mean an effective tax increase on many thousands of small businesses. Likewise, I am pleased to see that this bill has the foresight to include an extension of some energy tax provisions that have not yet expired. Some of these, including the credit for electricity produced from geothermal energy sources, are very important to my home State of Utah. It is refreshing to see that we are being a little more proactive and extending provisions before they actually expire. This represents a much more responsible public policy approach than waiting to act until the provisions have already expired.

I would now like to highlight some of the health care provisions that are included in this legislation. First, I have been a strong proponent of ensuring that patients continue to receive access to quality health care by addressing the scheduled reduction in the Medicare physician reimbursement for 2007. This legislation prevents physician payment cuts in 2007 by freezing payments for physician services, and, as a result, doctors will receive a 0 percent update next year instead of a 5 percent reduction. The bill also provides a 1.5 percent bonus- incentive payment to doctors who report on quality measures in 2007. Finally, the provision provides a fund to promote physician payment stability and quality initiatives in 2008.

I also am a proud advocate for providing Medicare patients continued access to needed therapy. More specifically, this legislation provides a 1-year extension of the exceptions process established in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 to allow Medicare beneficiaries to apply for additional physical, occupational and speech language therapy services if their treatment is expected to exceed the annual cap on therapy services. I am pleased that this provision was included in the legislation we are considering today.

In 2003, I introduced legislation that was included in the Medicare Modernizations Act of 2003 to change the formula for Medicare reimbursement to physicians, since the previous formula penalized those practicing in rural States like Utah. The bill extends the new formula through 2007, which will continue to raise payments in certain rural areas.

In addition, I fought to extend the availability of the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly, PACE, program, which is of interest to those providing long-term, acute care for frail elderly in rural areas, including Grand County in Utah. The legislation before the Senate would ensure that funds for the rural PACE grants are available through 2010.

Another important component of this bill is the payment for administration of Medicare Part D vaccines. The legislation specifies that during 2007, the administrative costs for a vaccine covered by Medicare Part D are to be paid under Medicare Part B. However, beginning in 2008, the Medicare Part D coverage will include the administrative costs for vaccines covered under Medicare Part D. Several months ago, I brought this matter to the attention of the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and I am pleased that this issue will be addressed through this bill.

Also, the legislation includes a feasibility study on how to create a national database to collect data on elder abuse. Let me make it clear that I am extremely disappointed that the Elder Justice Act was not approved for the second Congress in a row. This legislation was passed unanimously by the Senate Finance Committee in both the 108th Congress and the 109th Congress. I want to let my colleagues know that I will continue to fight for passage of this legislation during the 110th Congress and it is my hope that my House colleagues will be more willing to work with me next year in passing this bill. We expect more than 78 million baby boomers to retire over the next three decades and, in my opinion, we owe it to our seniors to be more informed about elder abuse. Passing the Elder Justice Act is the first step toward accomplishing that goal.

During my tenure in the Senate, I have repeatedly voted in favor of free trade. Most economists agree that free trade is not only in the United States best interest but in the interest of developing nations throughout the world. One of the most efficient ways that we can lift millions out of poverty is through free trade.

However, since the end of the Second World War, the United States has, on a number of occasions, accepted nonreciprocal trade concessions in order to further important Cold War and post-Cold War foreign policy objectives. Examples include offering Japan and Europe nonreciprocal access to American markets during the 1950s and 1960s in order to strengthen the economies of our allies and prevent the spread of Communism. Other examples of this type of initiative include the Generalized System of Preferences, the African Growth and Opportunity Act and the Andean Trade Preferences Extension Act.

In the past, we have afforded these unilateral trade preferences because of the strength of American exports. But times have changed. Our nation has not enjoyed a trade surplus since 1975 and last year's deficit widened to a record $726 billion, increasing to 5.8 percent of the gross domestic product from 5.3 percent in 2004 and 4.5 percent in 2003.

This is not say that I do not support the renewal of the Generalized System of Preferences, the African Growth and Opportunity Act and the Andean Trade Preferences Extension Acts. I do support their renewal.

However, I share the concerns of the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, that blanket renewals are not in our Nation's best interest, especially when countries with rapidly expanding economies, such as India and Brazil, can avail themselves of the unilateral preferences granted in the Generalized System of Preferences. I am also very concerned that the Andean Trade Preferences Extension Act will be renewed for nations like Ecuador, whose government has nationalized American-owned corporations without paying just compensation.

Therefore, I look forward to working with Senator Grassley and the in-coming chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, in order to better tailor our preference systems so that we help developing nations lift their populations out of poverty and craft a comprehensive strategy that will return American exports to the surplus column.

Another issue included in this trade portion of this bill is the granting of Permanent Normal Trade Relations, PNTR, for Vietnam. For years, I have been very concerned regarding the religious freedom of the Vietnamese people. That was one of the major reason why in 2001, I voted against the Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement. However, I have been encouraged by a series of reforms that have occurred that culminated in the agreement on religious freedom between our two countries, in which Hanoi agreed to take steps that were designed to improve conditions for people of faith, particularly in the Central Highlands, which includes the Montagnards. Therefore, I will support PNTR for Vietnam but I pledge eternal vigilance to ensure that the Vietnamese Government lives up to its commitments and ensure the basic rights of its people.

As to the economic benefits of granting PNTR for Vietnam, it is true that Vietnam currently enjoys a $5.3 billion trade deficit over the United States. However, it should be noted that Vietnam has been an important customer of high-value goods, especially aircraft. This includes being a launch customer for what promises to be one of the United States premiere export products of this century the 787 Dreamliner.

The adoption of the Vietnam PNTR will not assist in remedying the trade deficit between our two countries. The reason being, that unlike some free trade agreements that the United States has entered into, the United States does not grant Vietnam unilateral preferential access to United States markets. However, under the agreement Vietnamese tariffs on many U.S. agricultural products will be reduced from 27 percent to 15 percent or less. The agreement also calls for the elimination of 96 percent of the tariffs on scientific equipment. Scientific

equipment is a significant export for my home State of Utah.

Therefore, I will support the Vietnam PNTR as a means for American companies to have greater access to this burgeoning market and as a means of closing the trade deficit with this Nation.

Finally, I support the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act. This is of course a matter which has been brought to our attention, in part, through the hard work of my friend Senator DeWine. I understand that with the enactment of this legislation tens of thousands of Haitians will find employment in their country. This is something that we must do. Haiti is the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, we must do all that we can to assist this nation, which is only 600 miles from our border, lift the heavy hand of poverty and begin to provide for a better life for its people.

I would like to thank all of those involved in getting this important piece of legislation through both Congressional bodies and saving American taxpayers from an enormous tax increase next year.