Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act, a bill that responds to the dire need of our rural communities for quality health care and disease prevention programs. Almost one fourth of Americans live in rural areas and frequently lack access to adequate physical and mental health care. As many as 21 million of the 34 million people living in underserved rural areas are without access to a primary care provider. Even in areas where providers do exist, there are numerous limits to access, such as geography, distance, lack of transportation, and lack of knowledge about available resources. Due to the diversity of rural populations, language and cultural obstacles are often a factor in the access to medical care.

Compound these problems with limited financial resources, and the result is that many Americans living in rural communities go without vital health care, especially preventive care. Children fail to receive immunizations and routine checkups. Preventable illnesses and injuries occur needlessly, and lead to expensive hospitalizations. Early symptoms of emotional problems and substance abuse go undetected, and often develop into full-blown disorders.

An Institute of Medicine (IOM) report entitled, ``Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research,'' highlights the benefits of preventive care for all health problems. The training of health care providers in prevention is crucial in order to meet the demand for care in underserved areas. Currently, rural

health care providers lack preventive care training opportunities.

Interdisciplinary preventive training of rural health care providers must be encouraged. Through such training, rural health care providers can build a strong educational foundation from the behavioral, biological, and psychological sciences. Interdisciplinary team prevention training will also facilitate operations at sites with both health and mental health clinics by facilitating routine consultation between groups. Emphasizing the mental health disciplines and their services as part of the health care team will contribute to the overall health of rural communities.

The Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act would implement the risk-reduction model described in the IOM study. This model is based on the identification of risk factors and targets specific interventions for those risk factors. The human suffering caused by poor health is immeasurable, and places a huge financial burden on communities, families, and individuals. By implementing preventive measures to reduce this suffering, the potential psychological and financial savings are enormous.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Nursing School Clinics Act. This measure builds on our concerted efforts to provide access to quality health care for all Americans by offering grants and incentives for nursing schools to establish primary care clinics in underserved areas where additional medical services are most needed. In addition, this measure provides the opportunity for nursing schools to enhance the scope of student training and education by providing firsthand clinical experience in primary care facilities.

Primary care clinics administered by nursing schools are university or nonprofit primary care centers developed mainly in collaboration with university schools of nursing and the communities they serve. These centers are staffed by faculty and staff who are nurse practitioners and public health nurses. Students supplement patient care while receiving preceptorships provided by college of nursing faculty and primary care physicians, often associated with academic institutions, who serve as collaborators with nurse practitioners. To date, the comprehensive models of care provided by nursing clinics have yielded excellent results, including significantly fewer emergency room visits, fewer hospital inpatient days, and less use of specialists, as compared to conventional primary health care.

This bill reinforces the principle of combining health care delivery in underserved areas with the education of advanced practice nurses. To accomplish these objectives, Title XIX of the Social Security Act would be amended to designate that the services provided in these nursing school clinics are reimbursable under Medicaid. The combination of grants and the provision of Medicaid reimbursement furnishes the financial incentives for clinic operators to establish the clinics.

In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost-effective and quality health care to all Americans, we must consider a wide range of proposals, both large and small. Most importantly, we must approach the issue of health care with creativity and determination, ensuring that all reasonable avenues are pursued. Nurses have always been an integral part of health care delivery. The Nursing School Clinics Act recognizes the central role nurses can perform as care givers to the medically underserved.

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

Mr. President, almost twelve years ago, I stood before you to introduce a bill ``to provide an opportunity for the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada to have the merits of their claims against the United States determined by the United States Court of Federal Claims.''

That bill was introduced as Senate Resolution 223, which referred the Pottawatomi's claim to the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and required the Chief Judge to report back to the Senate and provide sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to enable the Congress to determine whether the claim of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada is legal or equitable in nature, and the amount of damages, if any, which may be legally or equitably due from the United States.

Seven years ago, the Chief Judge of the Court of Federal Claims reported back that the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has a legitimate and credible legal claim. Thereafter, by settlement stipulation, the United States has taken the position that it would be ``fair, just and equitable'' to settle the claims of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada for the sum of $1,830,000. This settlement amount was reached by the parties after seven years of extensive, fact-intensive litigation. Independently, the court concluded that the settlement amount is ``not a gratuity'' and that the ``settlement was predicated on a credible legal claim.'' Pottawatomi Nation in Canada, et al. v. United States, Cong. Ref. 94-1037X at 28 (Ct. Fed. Cl., September 15, 2000) (Report of Hearing Officer).

The bill I introduce today is to authorize the appropriation of those funds that the United States has concluded would be ``fair, just and equitable'' to satisfy this legal claim. If enacted, this bill will finally achieve a measure of justice for a tribal nation that has for far too long been denied.

For the information of our colleagues, this is the historical background that informs the underlying legal claim of the Canadian Pottawatomi.

The members of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada are one of the descendant groups--successors-in-interest--of the historical Pottawatomi Nation and their claim originates in the latter part of the 18th century. The historical Pottawatomi Nation was aboriginal to the United States. They occupied and possessed a vast expanse in what is now the States of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, llinois, and Wisconsin. From 1795 to 1833, the United States annexed most of the traditional land of the Pottawatomi Nation through a series of treaties of cession--many of these cessions were made under extreme duress and the threat of military action. In exchange, the Pottawatomis were repeatedly made promises that the remainder of their lands would be secure and, in addition, that the United States would pay certain annuities to the Pottawatomi.

In 1829, the United States formally adopted a Federal the policy of removal--an effort to remove all Indian tribes from their traditional lands east of the Mississippi River to the west. As part of that effort, the government increasingly pressured the Pottawatomis to cede the remainder of their traditional lands--some five million acres in and around the city of Chicago and remove themselves west. For years, the Pottawatomis steadfastly refused to cede the remainder of their tribal territory. Then in 1833, the United States, pressed by settlers seeking more land, sent a Treaty Commission to the Pottawatomi with orders to extract a cession of the remaining lands. The Treaty Commissioners spent 2 weeks using extraordinarily coercive tactics-- including threats of war--in an attempt to get the Pottawatomis to agree to cede their territory. Finally, those Pottawatomis who were present relented and on September 26, 1933, they ceded their remaining tribal estate through what would be known as the Treaty of Chicago. Seventy-seven members of the Pottawatomi Nation signed the Treaty of Chicago. Members of the ``Wisconsin Band'' were not present and did not assent to the cession.

In exchange for their land, the Treaty of Chicago provided that the United States would give to the Pottawatomis 5 million acres of comparable land in what is now Missouri. The Pottawatomi were familiar with the Missouri land, aware that it was similar to their homeland. But the Senate refused to ratify that negotiated agreement and unilaterally switched the land to five million acres in Iowa. The Treaty Commissioners were sent back to acquire Pottawatomi assent to the Iowa land. All but seven of the original 77 signatories refused to accept the change even with promises that if they were dissatisfied ``justice would be done.''

Treaty of Chicago, as amended, Article 4. Nevertheless, the Treaty of Chicago was ratified as amended by the Senate in 1834. Subsequently, the Pottawatomis sent a delegation to evaluate the land in Iowa. The delegation reported back that the land was ``not fit for snakes to live on.''

While some Pottawatomis removed westward, many of the Pottawatomis-- particularly the Wisconsin Band, whose leaders never agreed to the Treaty--refused to do so. By 1836, the United States began to forcefully remove Pottawatomis who remained in the east--with devastating consequences. As is true with many other American Indian tribes, the forced removal westward came at great human cost. Many of the Pottawatomi were forcefully removed by mercenaries who were paid on a per capita basis government contract. Over one-half of the Indians removed by these means died en route. Those who reached Iowa were almost immediately removed further to inhospitable parts of Kansas against their will and without their consent.

Knowing of these conditions, many of the Pottawatomis including most of those in the Wisconsin Band vigorously resisted forced removal. To avoid Federal troops and mercenaries, much of the Wisconsin Band ultimately found it necessary to flee to Canada. They were often pursued to the border by government troops, government-paid mercenaries or both. Official files of the Canadian and United States governments disclose that many Pottawatomis were forced to leave their homes without their horses or any of their possessions other than the clothes on their backs.

By the late 1830s, the government refused payment of annuities to any Pottawatomi groups that had not removed west. In the 1860s, members of the Wisconsin Band--those still in their traditional territory and those forced to flee to Canada--petitioned Congress for the payment of their treaty annuities promised under the Treaty of Chicago and all other cession treaties. By the Act of June 25, 1864 (13 Stat. 172) the Congress declared that the Wisconsin Band did not forfeit their annuities by not removing and directed that the share of the Pottawatomi Indians who had refused to relocate to the west should be retained for their use in the United States Treasury. (H.R. Rep. No. 470, 64th Cong., p. 5, as quoted on page 3 of memo dated October 7, 1949.) Nevertheless, much of the money was never paid to the Wisconsin Band.

In 1903, the Wisconsin Band--most of whom now resided in three areas, the States of Michigan and Wisconsin and the Province of Ontario-- petitioned the Senate once again to pay them their fair portion of annuities as required by the law and treaties. (Sen. Doc. No. 185, 57th Cong., 2d Sess.) By the Act of June 21, 1906 (34 Stat. 380), the Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to investigate claims made by the Wisconsin Band and establish a roll of the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis that still remained in the East. In addition, the Congress ordered the Secretary to determine ``the[] [Wisconsin Bands] proportionate shares of the annuities, trust funds, and other moneys paid to or expended for the tribe to which they belong in which the claimant Indians have not shared, [and] the amount of such monies retained in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the clamant Indians as directed the provision of the Act of June 25, 1864.''

In order to carry out the 1906 Act, the Secretary of Interior directed Dr. W.M. Wooster to conduct an enumeration of Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi in both the United States and Canada. Dr. Wooster documented 2007 Wisconsin Pottawatomis: 457 in Wisconsin and Michigan and 1550 in Canada. He also concluded that the proportionate share of annuities for the Pottawatomis in Wisconsin and Michigan was $477,339 and that the proportionate share of annuities due the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada was $1,517,226. The Congress thereafter enacted a series of appropriation Acts from June 30, 1913 to May 29, 1928 to satisfy most of money owed to those Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis residing in the United States. However, the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis who resided in Canada were never paid their share of the tribal funds.

Since that time, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has diligently and continuously sought to enforce their treaty rights, although until this congressional reference, they had never been provided their day in court. In 1910, the United States and Great Britain entered into an agreement for the purpose of dealing with claims between both countries, including claims of Indian tribes within their respective jurisdictions, by creating the Pecuniary Claims Tribunal. From 1910 to 1938, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada diligently sought to have their claim heard in this international forum. Overlooked for more pressing international matters of the period, including the intervention of World War I, the Pottawatomis then came to the U.S. Congress for redress of their claim.

In 1946, the Congress waived its sovereign immunity and established the Indian Claims Commission for the purpose of granting tribes their long-delayed day in court. The Indian Claims Commission Act (ICCA) granted the Commission jurisdiction over claims such as the type involved here. In 1948, the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis from both sides of the border--brought suit together in the Indian Claims Commission for recovery of damages. Hannahville Indian Community v. U.S., No. 28 (Ind. Cl. Comm. Filed May 4, 1948). Unfortunately, the Indian Claims Commission dismissed Pottawatomi Nation in Canada's part of the claim ruling that the Commission had no jurisdiction to consider claims of Indians living outside territorial limits of the United States. Hannahville Indian Community v. U.S., 115 Ct. Cl. 823 (1950). The claim of the Wisconsin Band residing in the United States that was filed in the Indian Claims Commission was finally decided in favor of the Wisconsin Band by the U.S. Claims Court in 1983. Hannahville Indian Community v. United States, 4 Ct. Cl. 445 (1983). The Court of Claims concluded that the Wisconsin Band was owed a member's proportionate share of unpaid annuities from 1838 through 1907 due under various treaties, including the Treaty of Chicago and entered judgment for the American Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis for any monies not paid. Still the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada was excluded because of the jurisdictional limits of the ICCA.

Undaunted, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada came to the Senate and after careful consideration, we finally gave them their long-awaited day in court through the congressional reference process. The court has now reported back to us that their claim is meritorious and that the payment that this bill would make constitutes a ``fair, just and equitable'' resolution to this claim.

The Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has sought justice for over 150 years. They have done all that we asked in order to establish their claim. Now it is time for us to finally live up to the promise our government made so many years ago. It will not correct all the wrongs of the past, but it is a demonstration that this government is willing to admit when it has left unfulfilled an obligation and that the United States is willing to do what we can to see that justice--so long delayed is not now denied.

Finally, I would just note that the claim of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada is supported through specific resolutions by the National Congress of American Indians, the oldest, largest and most- representative tribal organization here in the United States, the Assembly of First Nations (which includes all recognized tribal entities in Canada), and each and every of the Pottawatomi tribal groups that remain in the United States today.

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

Mr. President, many of you know of my continued support and advocacy on the importance of addressing the plight of Filipino World War II veterans. As an American, I believe the treatment of Filipino World War II veterans is bleak and shameful. The Philippines became a United States possession in 1898, when it was ceded by Spain, following the Spanish-American War. In 1934, the Congress enacted the Philippine Independence Act, Public Law 73-127, which provided a 10- year

time frame for the independence of the Philippines. Between 1934 and final independence in 1946, the United States retained certain powers over the Philippines including the right to call military forces organized by the newly-formed Commonwealth government into the service of the United States Armed Forces.

The Commonwealth Army of the Philippines was called to serve with the United States Armed Forces in the Far East during World War II under President Roosevelt's July 26, 1941 military order. The Filipinos who served were entitled to full veterans' benefits by reason of their active service with our armed forces. Hundreds were wounded in battle and many hundreds more died in battle. Shortly after Japan's surrender, the Congress enacted the Armed Forces Voluntary Recruitment Act of 1945 for the purpose of sending Filipino troops to occupy enemy lands, and to oversee military installations at various overseas locations. These troops were authorized to receive pay and allowances for services performed throughout the Western Pacific. Although hostilities had ceased, wartime service of these troops continued as a matter of law until the end of 1946.

Despite all of their sacrifices, on February 18, 1946, the Congress passed the Rescission Act of 1946, now codified as Section 107 of Title 38 of the United States Code. The 1946 Act deemed that the service performed by these Filipino veterans would not be recognized as ``active service'' for the purpose of any U.S. law conferring ``rights, privileges, or benefits.'' Accordingly, Section 107 denied Filipino veterans access to health care, particularly for non-service-connected disabilities, and pension benefits. Section 107 also limited service- connected disability and death compensation for Filipino veterans to 50 percent of what their American counterparts receive.

On May 27, 1946, the Congress enacted the Second Supplemental Surplus Appropriations Rescission Act, which duplicated the language that had eliminated Filipino veterans' benefits under the First Rescission Act. Thus, Filipino veterans who fought in the service of the United States during World War II have been precluded from receiving most of the veterans' benefits that had been available to them before 1946, and that are available to all other veterans of our armed forces regardless of race, national origin, or citizenship status.

The Filipino Veterans Equity Act, which I introduce today, would restore the benefits due to these veterans by granting full recognition of service for the sacrifices they made during World War II. These benefits include veterans health care, service-connected disability compensation, non-service connected disability compensation, dependent indemnity compensation, death pension, and full burial benefits.

Throughout the years, I have sponsored several measures to rectify the lack of appreciation America has shown to these gallant men and women who stood in harm's way with our American soldiers and fought the common enemy during World War II. It is time that we as a Nation recognize our long-standing history and friendship with the Philippines. Of the 120,000 that served in the Commonwealth Army during World War II, there are approximately 60,000 Filipino veterans currently residing in the United States and the Philippines. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Filipino veteran population is expected to decrease to approximately 20,000 or roughly one-third of the current population by 2010.

Heroes should never be forgotten or ignored; let us not turn our backs on those who sacrificed so much. Let us instead work to replay all of these brave men for their sacrifices by providing them the veterans, benefits they deserve.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to repeal the current 50 percent tax deduction for business meals and entertainment expenses, and to restore the tax deduction to 80 percent gradually over a five-year period. Restoration of this deduction is essential to the livelihood of small and independent businesses as well as food service, travel, tourism, and entertainment industries throughout the United States. These industries are being economically harmed as a result of the 50 percent tax deduction.

Small businesses rely heavily on the business meal to conduct business, even more so than larger corporations. In releasing its study in May 2004, entitled he Impact of Tax Expenditure Policies on Incorporated Small Business, the Small Business Administration, SBA, Office of Advocacy, found that small incorporated businesses benefit more than their larger counterparts from the meal and entertainment tax deduction. According to the study, small firms that take advantage of the business-meal deduction reduce their effective tax rate by 0.75 percent on average, while larger firms only receive a 0.11 percent reduction in the effective tax rate. More importantly, the study strongly suggests that full reinstatement of the business meal and entertainment deduction should be a major policy priority for small businesses.

Small companies often use restaurants as onference space to conduct meetings or close deals. Meals are their best and sometimes only marketing tool. Certainly, an increase in the meal and entertainment deduction would have a significant impact on a small business bottom line. In addition, the effects on the overall economy would be significant.

Accompanying my statement is the National Restaurant Association (NRA), State-by-State chart reflecting the estimated economic impact of increasing the business meal deductibility from 50 to 80 percent. The NRA estimates that an increase to 80 percent would increase business meal sales by $8 billion and create a $26 billion increase to the overall economy.

I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the NRA State by State chart and the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Medicaid Advanced Practice Nurse and Physician Assistants Access Act of 2007.'' This legislation would change Federal law to expand fee-for-service Medicaid to include direct payment for services provided by all nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and physician assistants. It would ensure all nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and physician assistants are recognized as primary care case managers, and require Medicaid panels to include advanced practice nurses on their managed care panels.

Advanced practice nurses are registered nurses who have attained additional expertise in the clinical management of health conditions. Typically, an advanced practice nurse holds a master's degree with didactic and clinical preparation beyond that of the registered nurse. They are employed in clinics, hospitals, and private practices. While there are many titles given to these advanced practice nurses, such as pediatric nurse practitioners, family nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and clinical nurse specialists, our current Medicaid law has not kept up with the multiple specialties and titles of these advanced practitioners, nor has it recognized the critical role physician assistants play in the delivery of primary care.

I have been a long-time advocate of advanced practice nurses and their ability to extend health care services to our most rural and underserved communities. They have improved access to health care in Hawaii and throughout the United States by their willingness to practice in what some providers might see as undesirable locations--the extremely rural, frontier, or urban areas. This legislation ensures they are recognized and reimbursed for providing the necessary health care services patients need, and it gives those patients the choice of selecting advanced practice nurses and physician assistants as their primary care providers.

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

Mr. President, today, along with my colleagues; Senators Akaka, Kennedy, Conrad and Dorgan, I introduce ``The Wakefield Act,'' also known as the ``Emergency Medical Services for Children Act of 2007.'' Since Senator Hatch and I worked toward authorization of EMSC in 1984, this program has become the impetus for improving children's emergency services Nationwide. From specialized training for emergency care providers to ensuring ambulances and emergency departments have state-of-the-art pediatric sized equipment, EMSC has served as the vehicle for improving survival of our smallest and most vulnerable citizens when accidents or medical emergencies threatened their lives.

It remains no secret that children present unique anatomic, physiologic, emotional and developmental challenges to our primarily adult-oriented emergency medical system. As has been said many times before, children are not little adults. Evaluation and treatment must take into account their special needs, or we risk letting them fall through the gap between adult and pediatric care. The EMSC has bridged that gap while fostering collaborative relationships among emergency medical technicians, paramedics, nurses, emergency physicians, surgeons, and pediatricians.

The Institute of Medicine's recently released study on Emergency Care for

Children, indicated that our Nation is not as well prepared as once we thought. Only 6 percent of all emergency departments have the essential pediatric supplies and equipment necessary to manage pediatric emergencies. Many of the providers of emergency care have received fragmented and little training in the skills necessary to resuscitate this specialized population. Even our disaster preparedness plans have not fully addressed the unique needs posed by children injured in such events.

EMSC remains the only federal program dedicated to examining the best ways to deliver various forms of care to children in emergency settings. Re-authorization of EMSC will ensure that children's needs will be given the due attention they deserve and that coordination and expansion of services for victims of life-threatening illnesses and injuries will be available throughout the United States.

I look forward to re-authorization of this important legislation and the continued advances in our emergency healthcare delivery system.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Clinical Social Workers' Recognition Act to correct a continuing problem in the Federal Employees Compensation Act. This bill will also provide clinical social workers the recognition they deserve as independent providers of quality mental health care services.

Clinical social workers are authorized to independently diagnose and treat mental illnesses through public and private health insurance plans across the Nation. However, Title V of the United States Code, does not permit the use of mental health evaluations conducted by clinical social workers for use as evidence in determining workers' compensation claims brought by federal employees. The bill I am introducing corrects this problem.

It is a sad irony that federal employees may select a clinical social worker through their health plans to provide mental health services, but may not go to this same professional for workers' compensation evaluations. The failure to recognize the validity of evaluations provided by clinical social workers unnecessarily limits federal employees' selection of a provider to conduct the workers' compensation mental health evaluations. Lack of this recognition may well impose an undue burden on Federal employees where clinical social workers are the only available providers of mental health care.

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

Mr. President, the legislation I have introduced will extend to qualified teaching hospital support organizations the existing debt-financed safe harbor rule. Congress enacted that rule to support the public service activities of tax-exempt schools, universities, pension funds, and consortia of such institutions. Our teaching hospitals require similar support.

A New York Times article on June 21, 2002, described the financial problems which nonprofit hospitals are facing to modernize their facilities and meet the growing demand for charitable medical care. The problems have grown more urgent since that article appeared.

On November 22, 2006, the Wall Street Journal noted the rising numbers of uninsured patients who fill hospital emergency rooms without paying their bills. In 2005, 46.6 million Americans had no health insurance. Compounding the growing demand for charitable care, new safety and infection-prevention standards require hospitals to undertake massive improvements.

As a result, the article stated, for-profit hospitals are moving from older areas to affluent locations where residents can afford to pay for treatment. These private hospitals, the reporter pointed out, typically have no mandate for community service. In contrast, nonprofit hospitals must fulfill a community service requirement. They must stretch their resources to provide increased charitable care, update their facilities, and maintain skilled staffing. Both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times noted the resulting closures of nonprofit hospitals due to this financial strain.

The problem is particularly severe for teaching hospitals. As the Times article said, nonprofit hospitals provide nearly all the postgraduate medical education in the United States. Post-graduate medical instruction is by nature not profitable. Instruction in the treatment of mental disorders and trauma is especially costly.

Despite their financial problem the nation's nonprofit hospitals strive to deliver a very high level of service. A study in the December 2006 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine had surveyed hospitals' qualify of care in four areas of treatment. It found that nonprofit hospitals consistently outperformed for-profit hospitals. It also found that teaching hospitals had a higher level of performance in treatment and diagnosis. It said that investment in technology and staffing leads to better care. And it recommended that alternative payments and sources of payments be considered to finance these improvements.

The success and financial constraints of nonprofit teaching hospitals is evident in the work of the Queen's Health Systems in my State. This 146-year-old organization maintains the largest, private, nonprofit hospital in Hawaii. It serves as the primary clinical teaching facility for the University of Hawaii's medical residency programs in medicine, general surgery, orthopedic surgery, obstetrics-gynecology, pathology, and psychiatry. It conducts educational and training programs for nurses and allied health personnel. It operates the only trauma unit as well as the chief behavioral health program in the State. It maintains clinics throughout Hawaii, health programs for Native Hawaiians, and a small hospital on a rural, economically depressed island. Its medical reference library is the largest in the State. Not the least, it annually provides millions of dollars in uncompensated health services. To help pay for these community benefits, the Queen's Health Systems, as other nonprofit teaching hospitals, relies significantly on income from its endowment.

In the past, the Congress has allowed tax-exempt schools, colleges, universities, and pension funds to invest their endowment in real estate so as to better meet their financial needs. Under the tax code these organizations can incur debt for real estate investments without triggering the tax on unrelated business activities.

If the Queen's Health Systems were part of a university, it could borrow without incurring an unrelated business income tax. Not being part of a university, however, a teaching hospital and its support organization run into the tax code's debt financing prohibition. Nonprofit teaching hospitals have the same if not more pressing needs as universities, school, and pension trusts. The same safe harbor rule should be extended to teaching hospitals.

My bill would allow the support organizations for qualified teaching hospitals to engage in limited borrowing to enhance their endowment income. The proposal for teaching hospitals is actually more restricted than current law for schools, universities, and pension trusts. Under safeguards developed by the Joint Committee on Taxation staff, a support organization for a teaching hospital can not buy and develop land on a commercial basis. The proposal is tied directly to the organization endowment. The staff's revenue estimate show that the provision with its general application will help a number a teaching hospitals.

The U.S. Senate several times has acted favorably on this proposal. The Senate adopted a similar provision in H.R. 1836 the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001. The House conferees on that bill, however, objected that the provision was unrelated to the bill's focus on individual tax relief and the conference deleted the provision from the final legislation. Subsequently, the Finance Committee included the provision in H.R. 7 the CARE Act of 2002 and in S. 476 the CARE Act of 2003 which the Senate passed. In the last Congress S. 6 the Marriage, Opportunity, Relief, and Empowerment Act of 2005, which the Senate leadership introduced, also included the proposal.

As the Senate Finance Committee's recent hearings show, substantial health needs would go unmet if not for our charitable hospitals. It is time for the Congress to assist the nation's teaching hospitals in their charitable, educational service.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to authorize the autonomous functioning of clinical psychologists and clinical social workers within the Medicare comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility program.

In my judgment, it is unfortunate that Medicare requires clinical supervision of the services provided by certain health professionals and does not allow them to function to the full extent of their state practice licenses. Those who need the services of outpatient rehabilitation facilities should have access to a wide range of social and behavioral science expertise. Clinical psychologists and clinical social workers are recognized as independent providers of mental health care services under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, the TRICARE Military Health Program of the Uniformed Services, the Medicare (Part B) Program, and numerous private insurance plans. This legislation will ensure that these qualified professionals achieve the same recognition under the Medicare comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility program.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of our Nation's clinical social workers, I am introducing legislation to amend the Public Health Service Act. This legislation would: 1. establish a new social work training program, 2. ensure that social work students are eligible for support under the Health Careers Opportunity Program, 3. provide social work schools with eligibility for support under the Minority Centers of Excellence programs, 4. permit schools offering degrees in social work to obtain grants for training projects in geriatrics, and 5. ensure that social work is recognized as a profession under the Public Health Maintenance Organization Act.

Despite the impressive range of services social workers provide to people of this nation, few federal programs exist to provide opportunities for social work training in health and mental health care.

Social workers have long provided quality mental health services to our citizens and continue to be at the forefront of establishing innovative programs to serve our disadvantaged populations. I believe it is important to ensure that the special expertise social workers possess continues to be available to the citizens of this nation. This bill, by providing financial assistance to schools of social work and social work students, acknowledges the long history and critical importance of the services provided by social work professionals. I believe it is time to provide them with the recognition they deserve.

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

Mr. President, I am reintroducing legislation today that would direct the Secretary of the Army to determine whether certain nationals of the Philippine Islands performed military service on behalf of the United States during World War II.

Our Filipino veterans fought side by side with Americans and sacrificed their lives on behalf of the United States. This legislation would confirm the validity of their claims and further allow qualified individuals the opportunity to apply for military and veterans benefits that, I believe, they are entitled to. As this population becomes older, it is important for our Nation to extend its firm commitment to the Filipino veterans and their families who participated in making us the great Nation that we are today.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill which is of great importance to a group of patriotic Americans. This legislation is designed to extend space-available travel privileges on military aircraft to those who have been totally disabled in the service of our country.

Currently, retired members of the Armed Services are permitted to travel on a space-available basis on non-scheduled military flights within the continental United States, and on scheduled overseas flights operated by the Military Airlift Command. My bill would provide the same benefits for veterans with 100 percent service-connected disabilities.

We owe these heroic men and women who have given so much to our country a debt of gratitude. Of course, we can never repay them for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our Nation, but we can surely try to make their lives more pleasant and fulfilling. One way in which we can help is to extend military travel privileges to these distinguished American veterans. I have received numerous letters from all over the country attesting to the importance attached to this issue by veterans. Therefore, I ask that my colleagues show their concern and join me in saying ``thank you'' by supporting this legislation.

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

Mr. President, in our effort to accommodate many Americans by making Memorial Day the last Monday in May, we have lost sight of the significance of this day to our Nation. My bill would restore Memorial Day to May 30 and authorize our flag to fly at half mast on that day. In addition, this legislation would authorize the President to issue a proclamation designating Memorial Day and Veterans Day as days for prayer and ceremonies. This legislation would help restore the recognition our veterans deserve for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our nation.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to enable those former prisoners of war who have been separated honorably from their respective services and who have been rated as having a 30 percent service-connected disability to have the use of both the military commissary and post exchange privileges. While I realize it is impossible to adequately compensate one who has endured long periods of incarceration at the hands of our Nation's enemies, I do feel this gesture is both meaningful and important to those concerned because it serves as a reminder that our Nation has not forgotten their sacrifices.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to correct discrepancies in the reimbursement of clinical social workers covered through Medicare, Part B. The three proposed changes contained in this legislation clarify the current payment process for clinical social workers and establish a reimbursement methodology for the profession that is similar to other health care professionals reimbursed through the Medicare program.

First, this legislation sets payment for clinical social worker services according to a fee schedule established by the Secretary. Second, it explicitly states that services and supplies furnished by a clinical social worker are a covered Medicare expense, just as these services are covered for other mental health professionals in Medicare. Third, the bill allows clinical social workers to be reimbursed for services provided to a client who is hospitalized.

Clinical social workers are valued members of our health care provider network. They are legally regulated in every State of the Nation and are recognized as independent providers of mental health care throughout the health care system. It is time to correct the disparate reimbursement treatment of this profession under Medicare.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Registered Nurse Safe Staffing Act. For over four decades I have been a committed supporter of nurses and the delivery of safe patient care. While enforceable regulations will help to ensure patient safety, the complexity and variability of today's hospitals require that staffing patterns

be determined at the hospital and unit level, with the professional input of registered nurses. More than a decade of research demonstrates that nurse staff levels and the skill mix of nursing staff directly affect the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients. Studies show that when there are more registered nurses, there are lower mortality rates, shorter lengths of stay, reduced costs, and fewer complications.

A study published in the Journal of The American Medical Association found that the risks of patient mortality rose by 7 percent for every additional patient added to the average nurse's workload. In the midst of a nursing shortage and increasing financial pressures, hospitals often find it difficult to maintain adequate staffing. While nursing research indicates that adequate registered nurse staffing is vital to the health and safety of patients, there is no standardized public reporting mechanism, nor enforcement of adequate staffing plans. The only regulations addressing nursing staff exists vaguely in Medicare Conditions of Participation which states: ``The nursing service must have an adequate number of licensed registered nurses, licensed practice (vocational) nurse, and other personnel to provide nursing care to all patients as needed''.

This bill will require Medicare Participating Hospitals to develop and maintain reliable and valid systems to determine sufficient registered nurse staffing. Given the demands that the healthcare industry faces today, it is our responsibility to ensure that patients have access to adequate nursing care. However, we must ensure that the decisions by which care is provided are made by the clinical experts, the registered nurses caring for these patients. Support of this bill supports our nation's nurses during a critical shortage, but more importantly, works to ensure the safety of their patients.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to amend the Public Health Service Act for the establishment of a National Center for Social Work Research. Social workers provide a multitude of health care delivery services throughout America to our children, families, the elderly, and persons suffering from various forms of abuse and neglect. The purpose of this center is to support and disseminate information about basic and clinical social work research, and training, with emphasis on service to underserved and rural populations.

While the Federal Government provides funding for various social work research activities through the National Institutes of Health and other Federal agencies, there presently is no coordination or direction of these critical activities and no overall assessment of needs and opportunities for empirical knowledge development. The establishment of a Center for Social Work Research would result in improved behavioral and mental health care outcomes for our nation's children, families, the elderly, and others.

In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost- effective, research-based, quality health care to all Americans, we must recognize the important contributions of social work researchers to health care delivery and the central role that the Center for Social Work can provide in facilitating their work.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation today to modify Title VII of the U.S. Public Health Service Act in order to provide students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with the opportunity to participate in various health professions loan programs.

Providing students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with eligibility for financial assistance in the form of loans, loan guarantees, and scholarships will facilitate a much-needed infusion of behavioral science expertise into our community of public health providers. There is a growing recognition of the valuable contribution being made by psychologists toward solving some of our Nation's most distressing problems.

The participation of students from all backgrounds and clinical disciplines is vital to the success of health care training. The Title VII programs play a significant role in providing financial support for the recruitment of minorities, women, and individuals from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Minority therapists have an advantage in the provision of critical services to minority populations because often they can communicate with clients in their own language and cultural framework. Minority therapists are more likely to work in community settings where ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged individuals are most likely to seek care. It is critical that continued support be provided for the training of individuals who provide health care services to underserved communities.

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

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to amend Title VII of the Public Health Service Act to establish a psychology post-doctoral program. Psychologists have made a unique contribution in reaching out to the Nation's medically underserved populations. Expertise in behavioral science is useful in addressing grave concerns such as violence, addiction, mental illness, adolescent and child behavioral disorders, and family disruption. Establishment of a psychology post-doctoral program could be an effective way to find solutions to these issues.

Similar programs supporting additional, specialized training in traditionally underserved settings have been successful in retaining participants to serve the same populations. For example, mental health professionals who have participated in these specialized federally funded programs have tended not only to meet their repayment obligations, but have continued to work in the public sector or with the underserved.

While a doctorate in psychology provides broad-based knowledge and mastery in a wide variety of clinical skills, specialized post-doctoral fellowship programs help to develop particular diagnostic and treatment skills required to respond effectively to underserved populations. For example, what appears to be poor academic motivation in a child recently relocated from Southeast Asia might actually reflect a cultural value of reserve rather than a disinterest in academic learning. Specialized assessment skills enable the clinician to initiate effective treatment.

Domestic violence poses a significant public health problem and is not just a problem for the criminal justice system. Violence against women results in thousands of hospitalizations a year. Rates of child and spouse abuse in rural areas are particularly high, as are the rates of alcohol abuse and depression in adolescents. A post-doctoral fellowship program in the psychology of the rural populations could be of special benefit in addressing these problems.

Given the demonstrated success and effectiveness of specialized training programs, it is incumbent upon us to encourage participation in post-doctoral fellowships that respond to the needs of the nation's underserved.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would provide a Federal charter for the National Academies of Practice. This organization represents outstanding health care professionals who have made significant contributions to the practice of applied psychology, medicine, dentistry, nursing, optometry, osteopathic medicine, pharmacy, podiatry, social work, and veterinary medicine. When fully established, each of the ten academies will possess 150 distinguished practitioners selected by their peers. This umbrella organization will be able to provide the Congress of the United States and the executive branch with considerable health policy expertise, especially from the perspective of those individuals who are in the forefront of actually providing health care.

As we continue to grapple with the many complex issues surrounding the delivery of health care services, it is clearly in our best interest to ensure that the Congress has direct and immediate access to the recommendations of an interdisciplinary body of health care practitioners.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to amend Title 18 of the United States Code to allow our Nation's clinical social workers to use their mental health expertise on behalf of the Federal judiciary by conducting psychological and psychiatric exams.

I feel that the time has come to allow our Nation's judicial system to have access to a wide range of behavioral science and mental health expertise. I am confident that the enactment of this legislation would be very much in our Nation's best interest.

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

Mr. President, Today I introduce the United States Military Cancer Institute Research Collaborative Act. This legislation, twice passed by the Senate yet unsuccessful in the House, would formally establish the United States Military Cancer Institute, USMCI, and support the collaborative augmentation of research efforts in cancer epidemiology, prevention and control. Although the USMCI already exists as an informal collaborative effort, this bill will formally establish the institution with a mission of providing for the maintenance of health in the military by enhancing cancer research and treatment, and studying the epidemiological causes of cancer among various ethnic groups. By formally establishing the USMCI, it will be in a better position to unite military research efforts with other cancer research centers.

Cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment are significant issues for the military population, thus the USMCI was organized to coordinate the existing military cancer assets. The USMCI has a comprehensive database of its beneficiary population of 9 million people. The military's nationwide tumor registry, the Automated Central Tumor Registry, has acquired more than 180,000 cases in the last 14 years, and a serum repository of 30 million specimens from military personnel collected sequentially since 1987. This population is predominantly Caucasian, African-American, and Hispanic.

The USMCI currently resides in the Washington, D.C., area, and its components are located at the National Naval Medical Center, the Malcolm Grow Medical Center, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, and the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute. There are more than 70 research workers, both active duty and Department of Defense civilian scientists, working in the USMCI.

The Director of the USMCI, Dr. John Potter, intends to expand research activities to military medical centers across the nation. Special emphasis will be placed on the study of genetic and environmental factors in carcinogenesis among the entire population, including Asian, Caucasian, African-American and Hispanic subpopulations.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Native Hawaiian Medicaid Coverage Act of 2004. This legislation would authorize a Federal Medicaid Assistance Percent, FMAP, of 100 percent for the payment of health care costs of Native Hawaiians who receive health care from Federally Qualified Health Centers or the Native Hawaiian Health Care System.

This bill was originally a provision within the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, which the Senate passed by an overwhelming majority of 76 to 21, but was dropped from the final Medicare Prescription Drug Conference Report.

This bill is modeled on the Native Alaskan Health Care Act, which provides for a Federal Medicaid Assistance Percent, FMAP, of 100 percent for payment of health care costs for Native Alaskans by the Indian Health Service, an Indian tribe, or a tribal organization.

Community health centers serve as the ``safety net'' for uninsured and medically underserved Native Hawaiians and other United States citizens, providing comprehensive primary and preventive health services to the entire community. Outpatient services offered to the entire family include comprehensive primary care, preventive health maintenance, and education outreach in the local community. Community health centers, with their multi-disciplinary approach, offer cost effective integration of health promotion and wellness with chronic disease management and primary care focused on serving vulnerable populations.

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

Mr. President, last year we made significant improvements to the Nation's transportation security system by enacting the SAFE Port Act, which strengthened the security of our Nation's ports and maritime vessels. Yet, during the conference on this important bill, the Congress failed to seize the opportunity to enact comprehensive transportation security legislation that would have provided real homeland security for our entire transportation system. The Senate- passed version of the SAFE Port Act contained essential provisions that would have strengthened security in all of the surface modes of transportation, including passenger and freight rail, public transit, trucking, intercity bus and pipelines. But jurisdictional infighting and a lack of political will kept the leadership of the House of Representatives from agreeing to, or even attempting to consider, these provisions in conference.

Given the urgent need for surface transportation security improvements, Cochairman Stevens and I are introducing the Surface Transportation and Rail Security Act of 2007, or STARS Act, to once again offer the Congress an opportunity to enact a comprehensive transportation security bill. We have all seen the possible consequences of an attack on critical surface transportation systems in Madrid and London. We have all heard about possible threats and foiled plots aimed at our rail tunnels and stations here at home. The time has come for us to address these vulnerabilities and risks in a comprehensive and coordinated way that ensures that in the rush to protect one mode of transportation we don't shift vulnerability towards other, less secure, transportation modes.

The STARS Act combines the rail, truck, bus, pipeline and hazardous materials security provisions that were included in the Senate-passed SAFE Port Act into a stand-alone bill, which the Commerce Committee will soon consider. These provisions were endorsed unanimously by the Senate during consideration of the SAFE Port Act, and the House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to instruct its conferees to include these provisions in the Conference Report--advice the House leadership declined to accept. Additionally, the rail security portion of this package has already passed the Senate twice in prior Congresses and has been endorsed by railroads and rail labor alike. This kind of support demonstrates both the necessity of these improvements and the distinct possibility that we can finally enact these provisions into law this Congress.

The legislation that we introduce today reflects the Commerce Committee's substantial expertise over the issues of transportation security. The time has come to advance these improvements, and protect the vital surface transportation assets that grant us the quality of life and economic health that we all cherish. Our legislation presents an opportunity to make immediate progress on transportation security, and it is my sincere hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting consideration and passage of this measure as soon as possible.

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

Mr. President, today the first bill I am introducing in the 110th Congress is the Kids Come First Act, legislation that would ensure every child in America has health care coverage. The Kids Come First Act was also the first bill I introduced in the 109th Congress and I feel just as strongly today as I did at the beginning of the last Congress that insuring all children must be a top agenda item. In the two years since I last introduced this bill, the problem of uninsured children in this nation has actually worsened.

The 110th Congress faces many challenges, from the war in Iraq to lobbying reform. But perhaps no issue bears more directly on the lives of more Americans than health care reform. Today 47 million Americans are uninsured, including 11 million under age 21. Health care has become a slow-motion Katrina that is ruining lives and bankrupting families all over the country. We cannot stand by as the ranks of the uninsured rise and American families find themselves in peril.

A recent Census Bureau report revealed that for the first time in almost a decade the number of uninsured children increased. In 2005 there were 361,000 children under the age of 18 added to the uninsured rolls. And the number of Americans without health care continues to rise.

The Kids Come First Act calls for a Federal-State partnership to mandate health coverage to every child in America. The proposal makes the states an offer they can't refuse. The federal government will pay for the most expensive part: enrolling all low-income children in Medicaid, automatically. The states will pay to expand coverage to higher income children. In the end, states across the country will save more than $6 billion a year, and every child will have health care.

It is totally unacceptable that, in the greatest country in the world, millions of children are not getting the health care they need. The Kids Come First Act expands coverage for children up to age of 21. Through expanding the programs that work, such as Medicaid and SCHIP, we can cover all eleven million children uninsured children.

Insuring children improves their health and helps families cover the spiraling costs of insuring them. Covering all kids will reduce avoidable hospitalizations by 22 percent and replace expensive critical care with inexpensive preventative care. Also, when children get the medical attention they need, they pay much better attention in the classroom and studies show their performance improves.

To pay for the expansion of health insurance for children, the Kids Come First Act includes a provision that provides the Secretary of Treasury with the authority to raise the highest income tax rate of 35 percent to a rate not higher than 39.6 percent in order to offset the costs. Prior to the enactment of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act Reconciliation Act of 2001, the top marginal rate was 39.6 percent. Less than one percent of taxpayers pay the top rate and for 2007, this rate only affects individual with income above $349,700.

The health care of our children is a priority that we must address and it can be done in a fiscally responsible manner. I will continue to work to find ways to offset the cost of my proposal. The wealthiest of all Americans do not need a tax cut when 11 million children do not even have health insurance. President Bush has called for this rate cut to be made permanent, but I believe it would be a better use of our resources to invest in our future by improving health care for children.

Since I first introduced the Kids Come First Act in the 109th Congress, more than 500,000 people have shown their support for the bill by becoming Citizen Cosponsors and another 20,000 Americans called into our ``Give Voices to Our Values'' hotline to share their personal stories. In addition, a coalition of 24 non-profit organizations representing 20 million people from across the country have endorsed Kids Come First, including the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, March of Dimes, the Small Business Service Bureau, AFL-CIO, SEIU, and AFSCME.

It is clear that providing health care coverage for our uninsured children is a priority for our nation's workers, businesses, and health care community. They know, as I do, that further delay only results in graver health problems for America's children. Their future, and ours, depends on us doing better. I urge my colleagues to support and help enacting the Kids Come First Act of 2007 during this Congress.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Kids Come First Act of 2007 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Export Products Not Jobs Act.'' Our tax code is extremely complicated. In 1994, the IRS estimated that a family that itemized their deductions and had some interest and capital gains would spend 11\1/2\ hours preparing their Federal income tax return. A decade later in 2004, this estimate increased to 19 hours and 45 minutes. It is time for Congress to pass bipartisan tax legislation in the style of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which greatly simplified the tax code. And our tax reform should be based upon the following three principles: fairness, simplicity, and opportunity for economic growth.

Citizens and businesses struggle to comply with rules governing taxation of business income, capital gains, income phase-outs, extenders, the myriad savings vehicles, recordkeeping for itemized deductions, the alternative minimum tax (AMT), the earned income tax credit (EITC), and taxation of foreign business income. I believe that our international tax system needs to be simplified and reformed to encourage businesses to remain in the United States. And today, I am introducing legislation that I hope will be fully considered as we continue our discussions on tax reform.

Presently, the complexities of our international tax system actually encourage U.S. corporations to invest overseas. Current tax laws allow companies to defer paying U.S. taxes on income earned by their foreign subsidiaries, which provides a substantial tax break for companies that move investment and jobs overseas. Today, under U.S. tax law, a company that is trying to decide where to locate production or services--either in the United States or in a foreign low-tax haven--is actually given a substantial tax incentive not only to move jobs overseas, but to reinvest profits permanently, as opposed to bringing the profits back to re-invest in the United States.

Recent press articles have revealed examples of companies taking advantage of this perverse incentive in our tax code. For instance, some companies have taken advantage of this initiative by opening subsidiaries to serve markets throughout Europe. Much of the profit earned by these subsidiaries will stay in the European countries and the companies therefore avoid paying U.S. taxes. Other companies have announced the expansion of jobs in India. This reflects a continued pattern among some U.S. multinational companies of shifting software development and call centers to India, and this trend is starting to expand include the shifting critical functions like design and research and development to India as well. Some companies are even outsourcing the preparation of U.S. tax returns.

The Export Products Not Jobs Act would put an to end to these practices by eliminating tax breaks that encourage companies to move jobs overseas and by using the savings to create jobs in the United States by repealing the top corporate rate. This legislation ends tax breaks that encourage companies to move jobs by: 1. eliminating the ability of companies to defer, paying U.S. taxes on foreign income; 2. closing abusive corporate tax loopholes; and 3. repealing the top corporate rate. It removes the incentive to shift jobs overseas by eliminating deferral so that companies pay taxes on their international income as they earn it, rather than being allowed to defer taxes.

Last Congress, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Revenue held a hearing on international tax laws. Stephen Shay, a former Reagan Treasury official, testified that our tax rules ``provide incentives to locate business activity outside the United States.'' Furthermore, he suggested that taxation of U.S. shareholders under an expansion of Subpart F would be a ``substantial improvement'' over our current system. The Export Products Not Jobs Act does just that.

Our current tax system punishes U.S. companies that choose to create and maintain jobs in the United States. These companies pay higher taxes and suffer a competitive disadvantage with a company that chooses to move jobs to a foreign tax haven. There is no reason why our tax code should provide an incentive that encourages investment and job creation overseas. Under my legislation, companies would be taxed the same whether they invest abroad or at home; they will be taxed on their foreign subsidiary profits just like they are taxed on their domestic profits.

This legislation reflects the most sweeping simplification of international taxes in over 40 years. Our economy has changed in the last 40 years and our tax laws need to be updated to keep pace. Our current global economy was not even envisioned when existing law was written.

My Export Products Not Jobs Act will in no way hinder our global competitiveness. Companies will be able to continue to defer income they earn when they locate production in a foreign country that serves that foreign country's markets. For example, if a U.S. company wants to open a hotel in Bermuda or a car factory in India to sell cars, foreign income can still be deferred. But if a company wants to open a call center in India to answer calls from outside India or relocate abroad to sell cars back to the United States or Canada, the company must pay taxes just like call centers and auto manufacturers located in the United States.

Currently, American companies allocate their revenue not in search of the highest return, but in search of lower taxes. Eliminating deferral will improve the efficiency of the economy by making taxes neutral so that they do not encourage companies to overinvest abroad solely for tax reasons.

The Congressional Research Service stated in a 2003 report that, ``[a]ccording to traditional economic theory, deferral thus reduces economic welfare by encouraging firms to undertake overseas investments that are less productive--before taxes are considered--than alternative investments in the United States.'' Additionally, a 2000 Department of Treasury study on deferral stated, ``[a]mong all of the options considered, ending deferral would also be likely to have the most positive long-term effect on economic efficiency and welfare because it would do the most to eliminate tax considerations from decisions regarding the location of investment.''

The ``Export Products Not Jobs Act'' would modify the rules for determining residency for publicly-traded companies by basing a corporation's residence on the location of its primary place of management and control. This will prevent companies from locating in tax havens, but basically maintaining their operations in the United States. This provision should not hinder foreign investment in the United States. Existing companies that are incorporated in foreign countries with a comprehensive tax treaty with the United States will not be affected by this provision.

Massachusetts is an example of a state that benefits from foreign investment. Two foreign companies have recently expanded investment in Massachusetts. Our tax system should not discourage foreign investment, but it should not encourage companies to locate in tax havens.

The revenue raised from the repeal of deferral and closing corporate loopholes would be used to repeal the top corporate tax rate of 35 percent. The tax differential between U.S. corporate rates and foreign corporate rates has grown over the last two decades and the repeal of the top corporate rate is a start in narrowing this gap.

The Export Products Not Jobs Act would promote equity among U.S. taxpayers by ensuring that corporations could not eliminate or substantially reduce taxation of foreign income by separately incorporating their foreign operations. This legislation will eliminate the tax incentives to encourage U.S. companies to invest abroad and reward those companies that have chosen to invest in the United States. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort, and I ask unanimous consent that summary of the Export Products Not Jobs Act, as well as the text of the legislation, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the College Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2007. This legislation creates a new tax credit that will put the cost of higher education in reach for American families.

An October 2006 College Board report found that this year tuition and other costs at public and private universities rose faster than inflation. And, according to the report, tuition and fees at public universities rose more in the past five years than at any other time in the past 30 years, increasing by 35 percent to $5,836 this academic year. Over the same time period, tuition and fees at private universities increased 22 percent to $22,218.

Unfortunately, neither student aid funds nor family incomes are keeping pace with increasing tuition and fees. In my travels around the country, I frequently hear from parents concerned they will not be able to pay for their children's college. These parents know that earning a college education will result in greater earnings for their children and they desperately want to ensure their kids have the greatest opportunities possible.

In 1997, we implemented two new tax credits to make college affordable--the HOPE Credit and the Lifetime Learning Credit. These tax credits were important and have put college in reach for families, but I believe we can do more. In December, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on tax incentives for higher education in which we learned that the existing tax credits are not reaching enough students, particularly lower-income students who are most severely impacted by rising tuitions.

The HOPE and Lifetime Learning credits are not refundable, and therefore a family of four must have an income over $30,000 in order to receive the maximum credit. Almost half of families with college students fail to receive the full credit because their income is too low. In order to receive the full benefit of the Lifetime Learning credit, a student has to spend $10,000 a year on tuition and fees. This is nearly double the average annual public four-year college tuition and four times the average annual tuition of a community college. Over 80 percent of college students attend schools with tuition and fees under $10,000.

In 2004, I proposed a refundable tax credit to help pay for the cost of four years of college. Currently the HOPE Credit applies only to the first two years of college. The College Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2007 (COTC) helps students and parents afford all four years of college. It also builds on the proposal I made in 2004 by incorporating some of the suggestions made by experts, including those at this

week's Finance Committee hearing. My legislation creates a new credit that replaces the existing HOPE credit and Lifetime Learning credit and ultimately makes these benefits more generous.

The COTC has two components. The first provides a refundable tax credit for a student enrolled in a degree program at least on a half- time basis. It would provide a 100 percent tax credit for the first $1,000 of eligible expenses and a 50 percent tax credit to the next $3,000 of expenses. The maximum credit would be $2,500 each year per student. The second provides a nonrefundable tax credit for part-time students, graduate students, and other students that do not qualify for the refundable tax credit. It provides a 40 percent credit for the first $1,000 of eligible expenses and a 20 percent credit for the next $3,000 of expenses.

Both of these credits can be used for expenses associated with tuition and fees. The same income limits that apply to the HOPE credit and the Lifetime Learning credit apply to the COTC; the COTC will be phased out ratably for taxpayers with income between $45,000 and $55,000 ($90,000 and $110,000 for married taxpayers). These amounts are indexed for inflation, as are the eligible amounts of expenses.

The College Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2007 simplifies the existing credits that make higher education more affordable and will enable more students to be eligible for tax relief. I understand that many of my colleagues are interested in making college more affordable. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make a refundable tax credit for college education a reality this Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this statement be printed in the record. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Minority

Entrepreneurship Development Act of 2007. At the beginning of a new Congress it is important to set priorities for the nation because every new Congress brings with it the hope for a brighter future. One of the ways that this new Senate will lead is by creating opportunities for more Americans to pursue the American dream. As incoming Chair of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, I hope to help in that effort by fostering the development of entrepreneurship in minority communities. It's vital that current and future entrepreneurs from minority communities are given the opportunity to build their own piece of the American dream. I believe that this legislation the Minority Entrepreneurship Development Act of 2007 will help in that effort.

I want to take a moment and tell you why it's so important to expand the numbers of entrepreneurs in the minority community. As a member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have received firsthand testimony and countless reports documenting the positive economic impact that occurs when we foster entrepreneurship in under-served communities. There are signs of significant economic returns when minority businesses are created and are able to grow in size and capacity. Between 1987 and 1997, revenue from minority owned firms rose by 22.5 percent, an increase equivalent to an annual growth rate of 10 percent. Employment opportunities within minority owned firms increased by 23 percent during that same period. There is a clear correlation between the growth of minority owned firms and the economic viability of the minority community.

Although these economic numbers tell a significant part of the story they don't tell the whole story of what these firms mean to the minority communities they serve and represent. Many of these business leaders are first generation immigrants; many are first generation business owners and many represent, for those in their communities, what hard work, determination and patience can do.

We must encourage those kinds of values in our minority communities and, quite frankly, in our nation as a whole. For generations, millions have come to our shores in search of a better life. Millions of others were brought here by force and for years were not given a voice in how their lives would turn out. But, how ever we got here, we all have become branches of this great tree we call America. This tree is still nourished by roots planted by our forefathers more than 200 years ago. Those men and women planted the roots of hard work, innovation, faith and risk taking.

When you think about it, those words are the perfect description of an entrepreneur. It is the spirit of entrepreneurship that has made our nation great. And that is why it is absolutely imperative that we continue to support and develop that spirit in our minority communities. To that end, this legislation provides several tools to help minority entrepreneurs as they develop and grow their businesses.

First, this legislation will create an Office of Minority Small Business Development at the Small Business Administration. One of its primary functions will be to increase the number of small business loans that minority businesses receive. Latinos, African-Americans, Asian-Americans and women have been receiving far fewer small business loans than they reasonably should.

To ensure that this trend is reversed and minorities begin to get a greater share of loan dollars, venture capital investments, counseling, and contracting opportunities, this bill will give the new office the authority to monitor the outcomes for SBA's Capital Access, Entrepreneurial Development, and Government Contracting programs. It also requires the head of the Office to work with SBA's partners, trade associations and business groups to identify more effective ways to market to minority business owners, and to work with the head of SBA's Field Operations to ensure that district offices have staff and resources to market to minorities.

Second, this legislation will create the Minority Entrepreneurship and Innovation Pilot Program. This program will offer a competitive grant to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges, and Hispanic-Serving Institutions to create an entrepreneurship curriculum at these institutions and to open Small Business Development Centers on those campus' to serve local businesses.

The goal of this program is to target students in highly skilled fields such as engineering, manufacturing, science and technology, and guide them towards entrepreneurship as a career option. Traditionally, minority-owned businesses are disproportionately represented in the service sectors. Promoting entrepreneurial education to undergraduate students will help expand business ownership beyond the service sectors to higher yielding technical and financial sectors.

Third, this legislation will create the Minority Access to Information Distance Learning Pilot Program. This program will offer competitive grants to well established national minority non-profit and business organizations to create distance learning programs for small business owners who are interested in doing business with the federal government.

The goal of this program is to provide low cost training to the many small business owners who cannot afford to pay a consultant thousands of dollars for advice or training on how to prepare themselves to contract with the Federal Government. There are thousands of small businesses in this country that are excellent and efficient. They are primed to provide the goods and services that this nation needs to stay competitive. This program will help prepare them to do just that.

Finally, this legislation will extend the Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Business Program which expired in 2003. This program provides a price evaluation adjustment for socially and economically disadvantaged businesses as a way of increasing their competitiveness when bidding against larger firms. This is one more tool to increase opportunities for our minority small business owners.

I have outlined several ways that we can create a more positive environment for our minority small business community. These are reasonable steps that we ought to take without delay. Moreover, these are important steps that will help bolster a movement that is already underway. According to U.S. Census data, Hispanics are opening businesses 3 times faster than the national average. Also, business development and entrepreneurship have played a significant role in the expansion of the black middle class in this country for over a century. These business owners are embodying the entrepreneurial spirit that our forefathers carried with them as they established this nation.

With this legislation and in my role as incoming Chair of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I hope to play a part in helping to extend that spirit to the next generation of entrepreneurs. Not only is this vital for our minority communities, but it is vital for America. I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of the Minority Entrepreneurship Development Act of 2007.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Small Business Health Care Tax Credit Act which would provide small businesses with a refundable tax credit to help with the cost of providing employees with health insurance. Recent studies show that certain groups of individuals are less likely to have employer-provided health insurance. The 2006 Kaiser Family Foundation Employer Health Benefits Survey shows that since 2000 the number of firms offering health benefits has declined from 69 percent to 61 percent in 2006. This decline in coverage is more prevalent in small businesses. Only 48 percent of the firms with less than 10 employees offer health insurance whereas, 90 percent of the firms with 50 or more employees offer health benefits. Approximately 32 million Americans work for firms with fewer than 50 employees.

The April 2006 Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey concluded that 41 percent of working-age Americans with incomes between $20,000 and $40,000 were uninsured for at least part of the past year. This reflects a dramatic increase in this income range, up from 28 percent in 2001. The survey found that of the 48 million American adults who were uninsured in the past year, 67 percent were in families where at least one person worked full time.

My legislation provides a refundable tax credit to small businesses designed to help provide coverage to those who are currently uninsured. Small businesses with less than 50 employees would be eligible to receive a tax credit to help with the cost of health care premiums for employees making more than $5,000 and less than $50,000 a year. To be eligible for the credit, the employer has to pay at least 50 percent of the health care insurance premium. The credit for businesses with fewer than 10 employees will be capped at 50 percent of the cost of the premium, and the credit amount decreases for larger businesses.

Last year, Leonard Burman, Codirector of the Tax Policy Center, testified before the Senate Finance Committee and suggested a refundable tax credit as an incremental option to help defray higher administrative costs faced by small employers in purchasing health care. This credit will help small businesses afford health care premiums. It is a refundable credit, so that it will help new businesses that do not yet have taxable income be able to offer health care and provide struggling businesses with assistance so that they can offer health care.

This tax credit will cut the cost of health insurance by up to 50 percent for small business owners. It will enable small businesses to provide health insurance for their low- and moderate-income employees. Until we can agree on a comprehensive proposal that will help reduce the cost of health care premiums for small businesses, this legislation provides an appropriate option for increasing health insurance coverage for small businesses and their employees.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which addresses the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) for 2007. Last Congress, a choice was made to extend lower capital gains and dividends rates that do not expire until the end of 2008 rather than address the AMT for 2007. My preference was to address the AMT for 2007 and I believe we still must take action to prevent taxpayers never intended to pay the AMT from being penalized this year.

I opposed the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 because it contained the wrong priorities for America leaving behind working families and substantially adding to the deficit. This law extended the lower rates on capital gains and dividends for 2009 and 2010, but only addressed the individual AMT for 2006.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, those earning $200,000 or more will receive 84 percent of the benefit of the capital gains tax cut and 63 percent of the benefit of the dividends tax cuts. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 42.8 percent of taxpayers with income between $50,000 and $100,000 will be impacted by the AMT if the AMT is not fixed for 2007 a number that increases to 66 percent by 2010. The Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation of Act of 2005 extends a tax cut that does not expire to the end of 2008 with a price tag of $50 billion, but fails to protect the hard working families that will be impacted by the AMT. These families were never intended to be impacted by the AMT, a tax originally designed to prevent a small number of high-income taxpayers from avoiding taxation.

Today, I am introducing legislation that will address the AMT for 2007 and repeal the lower tax rates on capital dividends for 2009 and 2010. To calculate the AMT, individuals add back certain ``preference items'' to their regular tax liability. These include personal exemptions, the standard deduction, and the itemized deduction for state and local taxes. From this amount, taxpayers subtract the AMT exemption amount, commonly referred to as the ``patch'' which reverted to lower levels at the end of 2005. The Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 increased and extended the patch for 2006. The patch was increased in order to hold the same number of taxpayers harmless from the AMT in 2006 as in 2005.

The problem with the AMT is that while the regular tax system is indexed for inflation, the AMT exemption amounts and tax brackets remain constant. This has the perverse consequence of punishing taxpayers for the mere fact their incomes rose due to inflation.

In 2001 Congress opted to provide more tax cuts to those with incomes of over $1 million rather than fix a looming tax problem for the middle class. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 did include a small adjustment to the AMT, but it was not enough. And we knew then that the number of taxpayers subject to the AMT would continue to rise steadily because the combination of tax cuts and a minor adjustment to the AMT would cause the AMT to explode. We are rapidly approaching this explosion and without immediate action America's middle class will be harmed.

My legislation extends and expands the AMT exemption amount for 2007 to prevent additional taxpayers from being impacted by the AMT. Without increasing and extending the AMT exemption for 2007, an additional 19.5 million taxpayers will be impacted by the AMT in 2007. Large families, with incomes as low as $49,438, will be hurt by the AMT. My legislation will allow nonrefundable personal credits such as the higher education tax credits and the dependent care credit against the AMT for 2007. This legislation is offset by repealing the lower rates on capital gains and dividends.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have argued that the extension of the capital gains and dividends benefits is necessary to provide investor certainty. But I believe that the certainty of working families worried about paying the AMT should come first.

About a third of long-term capital gains are reported by taxpayers who are impacted by the AMT and due to the interaction of the AMT, they do not fully benefit from the lower rates. Simply put, taxpayers forced to carry the AMT burden will not benefit from the lower capital gains and dividends rate.

The AMT is a looming problem that is impacting hard-working families and for each year that we fail to address the AMT, it gets worse and more expensive. At a minimum we must address the AMT for 2007. My legislation is not a long-term cure to the AMT crisis, but it will provide certainty for 2007 to hard working families who will be impacted by the AMT just because of where they live and the number of children they have, and it will addresses the AMT in a revenue neutral manner for 2007 as well.

We all agree that the AMT should not be impacting families with incomes below $100,000. My bill fixes the AMT for 2007 in a timely and fiscally responsible manner and gives Congress time to work in a bipartisan manner to find a fiscally responsible permanent solution to the AMT.

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

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Restore a Rational Tax Rate on Petroleum Act of 2007. This legislation repeals the manufacturing deduction for big oil and gas companies that was enacted by Congress in 2004. I introduced this legislation in the 109th Congress and Congressman McDermott introduced companion legislation in the House.

The domestic manufacturing deduction was designed to replace export- related tax benefits that were successfully challenged by the European Union. Producers of oil and gas did not benefit from this tax break. Initial legislation proposed to address the repeal of the export- related tax benefits and to replace them with a new domestic manufacturing deduction. That legislation only provided the deduction to industries that benefited from the export-related tax benefits. However, the final product extended the deduction to include the oil and gas industry as well.

My bill repeals the manufacturing deduction for oil and gas companies because these industries suffered no detriment from the repeal of export-related tax benefits. At a time when oil companies are reporting mind-boggling record profits, there is no reason to reward them with a tax deduction.

Like me, many Members of Congress support a windfall profits tax on big oil and gas companies. Providing this deduction to oil and gas companies actually functions as a reverse windfall profits tax. This deduction lowers the tax rates on the windfall profits that they are currently enjoying. And without Congressional action this benefit will increase: upon enactment, the domestic manufacturing deduction was three percent, but it increased to six percent in 2007 and it is scheduled to increase to nine percent in 2010.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. We owe it to the American people to eliminate tax benefits to the oil industry at a time of record profits, record gas prices, and record deficits.

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

Mr. President, 16 months after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, small business owners in New Orleans and across Louisiana are still struggling to keep their doors open and their employees working. In those 16 months, I have worked with Senators Snowe, Landrieu, and Vitter to produce a comprehensive package to reform the SBA's Disaster Assistance program. The SBA's failed response in a time of unmatched need demonstrated to everyone that this program is broken and needs fixing.

Immediately after Hurricane Katrina hit, I introduced an amendment with Senator Landrieu to the fiscal year 2006 Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations bill to address the needs of Gulf Region small business and homeowners. The amendment was adapted with input from Chair Snowe, and a subsequent bipartisan amendment passed the Senate with a vote of 96-0. Although the entire Senate supported the amendment, it was stripped out of the bill in conference.

On September 30, 2005, I again worked with Chair Snowe and Senators Landrieu and Vitter to introduce a bipartisan proposal, the Small Business Hurricane Relief and Reconstruction Act of 2006 S. 1807. This proposal was opposed by the administration. In June, I introduced the Small Business Disaster Loan Reauthorization and Improvements Act of 2006, S. 3487 which once again attempted to comprehensively address the shortcomings of the SBA's Disaster Assistance program. Again, the administration opposed this effort. In August, the Small Business Committee unanimously reported S. 3778, the Small Business Reauthorization and Improvements Act of 2006, which again put forward a bipartisan, comprehensive fix for this program. Finally, in December, just prior to the adjournment of the 109th Congress, yet another attempt was made at reaching a bipartisan consensus with the introduction of S. 4097, the Small Business Disaster Response and Loan Improvements Act of 2006. The administration maintained its opposition to the fixes proposed in this bill.

Now, on the first day of this new Congress, I am introducing the Small Business Disaster Response and Loan Improvements Act of 2007. Once again, this bill enjoys bipartisan support by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Small Business Committee, as well as by the Democratic and Republican Senators of Louisiana, whose constituents continue to wait for their Government to respond appropriately. I am introducing this bill on the first day of the 110th Congress because as the incoming chair of the Small Business Committee, improving the Disaster Assistance program at the SBA is among my top priorities.

This bill includes directives for the SBA to create a private disaster loan program, to allow for lenders to issue disaster loans. To ensure that these loans are borrower-friendly, we provide authorization for appropriations so that the agency can subsidize the interest rates. In addition, the administrator is authorized to enter into agreements with private contractors in order to expedite loan application processing for direct disaster loans.

The bill also includes language directing SBA to create an expedited disaster assistance loan program to provide businesses with short-term loans so that they may keep their doors open until they receive alternative forms of assistance. The days immediately following a disaster are crucial for business owners--statistics show that once they close their doors, they likely will not open them again. These short-term loans should help prevent those doors from closing.

A presidential declaration of Catastrophic National Disaster will allow the administrator to offer economic injury disaster loans to adversely affected business owners beyond the geographic reach of the disaster area. In the event of a large-scale disaster, businesses located far from the physical reach of the disaster can be affected by the magnitude of a localized destruction. We saw this when the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 affected businesses from coast to coast, and we saw it again with the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes. Should another catastrophic disaster strike, the President should have the authority to provide businesses across the country with access to the same low-interest economic injury loans available to businesses within the declared disaster area.

Non-profit entities working to provide services to victims should be rewarded and given access to the capital they require to continue their services. To this end, the administrator is authorized to make disaster loans to non-profit entities, including religious organizations.

Construction and rebuilding contracts being awarded are likely to be larger than the current $2 million threshold currently applied to the SBA Surety Bond Program, which helps small construction firms gain access to contracts. This bill increases the guarantee against loss for small business contracts up to $5 million and allows the administrator to increase that level to $10 million, if deemed necessary.

The bill also provides for Small Business Development Centers to offer business counseling in disaster areas, and to travel beyond traditional geographic boundaries to provide services during declared disasters. To encourage Small Business Development Centers located in disaster areas to keep their doors open, the maximum grant amount of $100,000 is waived.

So that Congress may remain better aware of the status of the administration's disaster loan program, this bill directs the administration to report to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and to the Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives regularly on the fiscal status of the disaster loan program as well as the need for supplemental funding. The adiministration is also directed to report on the number of Federal contracts awarded to small businesses, minority-owned small businesses, women-owned businesses, and local businesses during a disaster declaration.

Finally, gas prices continue to fluctuate, and fuel-dependent small businesses are struggling with the cost of energy. This bill provides relief to small business owners during times of above average energy price increases, authorizing energy disaster loans through the Small Business Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture to companies that are dependent on fuel.

In the 16 months since Katrina struck, I have visited New Orleans three times. I have met with the lifeblood of that city--its small business owners--the shopowners on Bourbon Street and on Magazine Street who make that city unique. The people of New Orleans are resilient, and they remain hopeful; they are keeping their

businesses open despite tourism that has been slow to return and despite a government response that was painfully slow to arrive. Sixteen months is too long a time to wait to reform and improve a program that could have breathed relief into this city's economy during a time of desperation. As this new Congress begins, I call on my colleagues to support this legislation, a bipartisan labor of more than a year's worth of negotiations. The tools offered within this bill will go a long way toward heading off another Katrina-like response to any future catastrophic disaster.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Snowe, Biden, and Lieberman in introducing the Rail Security Act of 2007. This legislation is nearly identical to the rail security measures approved by the Senate during both the 108th and 109th Congresses. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives has yet to act

on rail security legislation. I remain hopeful that rail security will be made a top priority for the 110th Congress.

We have taken important steps and expended considerable resources to secure the homeland since 9/11. I think all would agree that air travel is safer than it was five years ago. And, we have worked to address port security in a comprehensive manner. However, we need to do more to better secure other transportation modes, a fact well documented by the 9/11 Commission. Unfortunately, only relatively modest resources have been dedicated to rail security in recent years. As a result, our Nation's transit system, Amtrak, and the freight railroads remain vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

The Rail Security Act would authorize a total of almost $1.2 billion dollars for rail security. More than half of this funding would be authorized to complete tunnel safety and security improvements at New York's Penn Station, which is used by over 500,000 transit, commuter, and intercity passengers each workday. The legislation would also establish a grant program to encourage security enhancements by the freight railroads, Amtrak, shippers of hazardous materials, and local governments with responsibility for passenger stations. It would help to address identified security weaknesses in a manner that also seeks to protect the taxpayers' interests.

As we continue fight the War on Terror, we need to do all we can to address our vulnerabilities. We have witnessed the tragic attacks on rail systems in other countries, including the cities of London, Mumbai and Madrid, and the devastating consequences of those attacks. It is essential that we move expeditiously to protect all the modes of transportation from potential attack, and this legislation will help to do just that.

As I mentioned earlier, the Senate has consistently supported legislation to promote rail security. Most recently, rail security provisions were adopted last Fall as part of the port security legislation. But again, the House failed to allow these important security provisions to move ahead, and the provisions were stripped from the conference agreement. As a result, our rail network continues to remain vulnerable to terrorist attack. That is unacceptable in my judgement.

I urge the Senate to move quickly to again pass this important legislation.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Stevens and Dorgan in introducing the Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2007. This legislation is virtually identical to a measure approved unanimously by the Senate in 2005. I remain committed to moving the Professional Boxing Amendments Act through the Senate and I trust that my colleagues will once again vote favorably on this important legislation. Simply put, this legislation would better protect professional boxing from the fraud, corruption, and ineffective regulation that have plagued the sport for far too many years, and that have devastated physically and financially many of our Nation's professional boxers.

For almost a decade, Congress has made efforts to improve the sport of professional boxing and for very good reason. With rare exception, professional boxers come from the lowest rung on our economic ladder. Often they are the least educated and most exploited athletes in our nation. The Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 and the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000 established uniform health and safety standards for professional boxers, as well as basic protections for boxers against the sometimes coercive, exploitative, and unethical business practices of promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations. But further action is needed.

The Professional Boxing Amendments Act would strengthen existing Federal boxing law by improving the basic health and safety standards for professional boxers, establishing a centralized medical registry to be used by local commissions to protect boxers, reducing the arbitrary practices of sanctioning organizations, and enhancing the uniformity and basic standards for professional boxing contracts. Most importantly, this legislation would establish a Federal regulatory entity to oversee professional boxing and set basic uniform standards for certain aspects of the sport.

Current law has improved to some extent the state of professional boxing. However, I remain concerned, as do many others, that the sport remains at risk. In 2003, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) spent more than six months studying ten of the country's busiest State and tribal boxing commissions. Government auditors found that many State and tribal boxing commissions still do not comply with Federal boxing law, and that there is a troubling lack of enforcement by both Federal and State officials.

Ineffective and inconsistent oversight of professional boxing has contributed to the continuing scandals, controversies, unethical practices, and unnecessary deaths in the sport. These problems have led many in professional boxing to conclude that the only solution is an effective and accountable Federal boxing commission. The Professional Boxing Amendments Act would create such an entity.

Professional boxing remains the only major sport in the United States that does not have a strong, centralized association, league, or other regulatory body to establish and enforce uniform rules and practices. Because a powerful few benefit greatly from the current system of patchwork compliance and enforcement of Federal boxing law, a national self-regulating organization though preferable to Federal government oversight is not a realistic option.

This bill would establish the United States Boxing Commission, USBC or Commission. The Commission would be responsible for protecting the health, safety, and general interests of professional boxers. The USBC would also be responsible for ensuring uniformity, fairness, and integrity in professional boxing. More specifically, the Commission would administer Federal boxing law and coordinate with other Federal regulatory agencies to ensure that this law is enforced; oversee all professional boxing matches in the United States; and work with the boxing industry and local commissions to improve the safety, integrity, and professionalism of professional boxing in the United States.

The USBC would also license boxers, promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations. The Commission would have the authority to revoke such a license for violations of Federal boxing law, to stop unethical or illegal conduct, to protect the health and safety of a boxer, or if the revocation is otherwise in the public interest.

Mr. President, it is important to state clearly and plainly for the record that the purpose of the USBC is not to interfere with the daily operations of State and tribal boxing commissions. Instead, the Commission would work in consultation with local commissions, and it would only exercise its authority when reasonable grounds exist for such intervention. In point of fact, the Professional Boxing Amendments Act states explicitly that it would not prohibit any boxing commission from exercising any of its powers, duties, or functions with respect to the regulation or supervision of professional boxing to the extent not inconsistent with the provisions of Federal boxing law.

Let there be no doubt, however, of the very basic and pressing need in professional boxing for a Federal boxing commission. The establishment of the USBC would address that need. The problems that plague the sport of professional boxing undermine the credibility of the sport in the eyes of the public and--more importantly--compromise the safety of boxers. The Professional Boxing Amendments Act provides an effective approach to curbing these problems. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Indian Tribes Methamphetamine Reduction Grants Act of 2007. This bill is identical to S. 4113, a bipartisan measure that was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate on December 8, 2006, the last day of the 109th Congress. The legislation would allow Indian tribes to be eligible for funding through the Department of Justice to eradicate the scourge of methamphetamine use, sale and manufacture in Native American communities. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Dorgan, Baucus, Grassley, Reid, Feinstein, and Feingold in introducing this important legislation.

The impacts of methamphetamine use on communities across the Nation are well known and cannot be overstated. Methamphetamine is the leading drug-related law enforcement problem in the country. Unfortunately, the meth crisis is affecting Indian Country most severely. Very serious concerns have been raised by the U.S. Department of Justice, States, and other non-tribal law enforcement agencies over the rapidly growing levels of methamphetamine production and trafficking on reservations with large geographic areas or tribes adjacent to the U.S.-Mexico border. But because of the sovereign status of the tribes, criminals are generally not subject to state jurisdiction in many cases. As a result, local law enforcement often has no jurisdiction in Indian country, and tribal law enforcement agencies bear the brunt of most law enforcement functions.

The problem of meth in Indian country, which the National Congress of American Indians identified last year as its top priority, is ubiquitous, and has strained already overburdened law enforcement, health, social welfare, housing, and child protective and placement services on Indian reservations. Last year a former tribal judge on the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and other drugs. The day before, the Navajo Nation police arrested an 81 year old grandmother, her daughter, and her granddaughter, for selling meth. One tribe in Arizona had over 60 babies born with meth in their systems. In 2005, the National Indian Housing Council expanded its training for dealing with meth in tribal housing: the average cost of decontaminating a single residence that has been used a meth lab is $10,000.

During the 109th Congress, as the Chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, I held hearings on this serious matter. Committee witnesses testified that the methamphetamine epidemic in Indian country has contributed to a rise in child abuse and neglect cases, among other social ills, and some tribes reported dramatic increases in suicide rates among young people linked to methamphetamine use. Following our hearings, I was pleased to work with Senators Dorgan, Sessions, Bingaman and others in improving upon our legislation to assist Indian Country in fighting this terrible drug crisis.

To avoid any potential misinterpretation of the intent of this legislation, this bill includes language developed and agreed to during the last Congress that is designed to clarify the intent of the bill. This clarifying language, provided in section 2(a)(4) of the bill, is intended to make it clear that by authorizing the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance to award grant funds to a state, territory or Indian tribe to ``investigate, arrest and prosecute individuals'' involved in illegal methamphetamine activities, the legislation does not somehow authorize a grantee state, territory or Indian tribe to pursue law enforcement activities that it otherwise has no jurisdiction to pursue. And similarly, this provision also clarifies that an award or denial of a grant by the Bureau of Justice Assistance does not somehow allow a state, territory or Indian tribe to pursue law enforcement activities that it otherwise lacks jurisdiction to pursue. For example, a law enforcement agency in one state, territory or Indian reservation is not somehow enabled by this section, or by an award made pursuant to this section, to prosecute a methamphetamine crime arising in some other jurisdiction unless that agency already has such jurisdiction.

The legislation further clarifies that authority under the bill to award grants would have no effect beyond simply authorizing, awarding or denying a grant of funds to a state, territory or Indian tribe. So, for example, if a state, territory or Indian tribe is awarded or denied a grant of funds under this section, that award or denial has no relevance to or effect on the eligibility of the state, territory or Indian tribe to participate in any other program or activity unrelated to the award or denial of grants as permitted under this legislation. The award or denial of a grant under this subsection, in other words, is relevant only to the award or denial of the grant under this subsection, and nothing else.

The measure I am introducing today takes but a small step on the long journey toward our fight against methamphetamine. I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I am please to be joined by my colleague, Senator Kyl, in reintroducing a bill to designate Fossil Creek as a Wild and Scenic River. A companion measure is being introduced today by Congressman Renzi and other members of the Arizona congressional delegation.

Fossil Creek is a thing of beauty. With its picturesque scenery, lush riparian ecosystem, unique geological features, and deep iridescent blue pools and waterfalls, this tributary to the Wild and Scenic Verde River and Lower Colorado River Watershed stretches 14 miles through east central Arizona. It is home to a wide variety of wildlife, some of which are threatened or endangered species. Over 100 bird species inhabit the Fossil Creek area and use it to migrate between the range lowlands and the Mogollon-Colorado Plateau highlands. Fossil Creek also supports a variety of aquatic species and is one of the few perennial streams in Arizona with multiple native fish.

Fossil Creek was named in the 1800's when early explorers described the fossil-like appearance of creek-side rocks and vegetation coated with calcium carbonate deposits from the creek's water. In the early 1900's, pioneers recognized the potential for hydroelectric power generation in the creek's constant and abundant spring fed base-flow. They claimed the channel's water rights and built a dam system and generating facilities known as the Childs-Irving hydro-project. Over time, the project was acquired by Arizona Public Service (APS), one of the state's largest eclectic utility providers serving more than a million Arizonans. Because Childs-Irving produced less then half of 1 percent of the total power generated by APS, the decision was made ultimately to decommission the aging dam and restore Fossil Creek to its pre-settlement conditions.

APS has partnered with various environmental groups, federal land managers, and state, tribal and local governments to safely remove the Childs-Irving power generating facilities and restore the riparian ecosystem. In 2005, APS removed the dam system and returned full flows to Fossil Creek. Researchers predict Fossil Creek will soon become a fully regenerated Southwest native fishery providing a most-valuable opportunity to reintroduce at least six Threatened and Endangered native fish species as well as rebuild the native populations presently living in the creek.

There is a growing need to provide additional protection and adequate staffing and management at Fossil Creek. Recreational visitation to the riverbed is expected to increase dramatically, and by the Forest Service's own admission, they aren't able to manage current levels of visitation or the pressures of increased use. While responsible recreation and other activities at Fossil Creek are to be encouraged, we must also ensure the long-term success of the ongoing restoration efforts. Designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act would help to ensure the appropriate level of protection and resources are devoted to Fossil Creek. Already, Fossil Creek has been found

eligible for Wild and Scenic designation by the Forest Service and the proposal has widespread support from surrounding communities. All of the lands potentially affected by a designation are owned and managed by the Forest Service and will not affect private property owners.

Fossil Creek is a unique Arizona treasure, and would benefit greatly from the protection and recognition offered through Wild and Scenic designation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Wyden and Sununu in introducing the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007. This bill would ensure that consumers never have to pay a toll when they access the Information Highway. Whether consumers log onto the Internet using cable modem, DSL, dial-up or wireless services, under this bill, they will not be taxed by any State or local governments for their Internet usage.

Keeping Internet access affordable to all Americans is a worthy policy goal. The Internet has become a fixture and core component of modem American life that has created and continues to generate social and economic opportunities throughout the United States.

In 1998, Congress put in place a temporary ban on any State or local taxes on Internet access. Additionally, Congress placed a moratorium on multiple or discriminatory State and local taxes on e-commerce transactions to ensure the growth of online commerce. This moratorium was extended in 2004, but is set to expire November 1, 2007. Our legislation, the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007, would make the moratorium permanent.

Today, the U.S. ranks 12th in the world in per capita Internet access, lagging behind competitors South Korea, the United Kingdom and Canada. This is absolutely unacceptable for a country that leads the world in technical innovation, economic development, and international competitiveness. We certainly cannot afford to make Internet access more difficult to obtain if we want to become more internationally competitive.

There is little doubt that the development and growth of the Internet was aided by the tax moratorium. In 1998, the year the moratorium was first enacted, 36 percent of U.S. adults reported using the Internet. In 2006, that number grew to 73 percent, an all time high according to an April 2006 Pew Internet & American Life Project Report. However, the report also found that Americans in the lowest income households are considerably less likely to be online. Just 55 percent of adults living in households with less than $30,000 annual income go online, versus 73 percent of those whose income is between $30,000-$50,000. This ``digital divide'' needs to be closed immediately. Continuing Congress's policy of reducing the cost of Internet access, by preventing the service from being taxed, is one step we can take now to close the ``digital divide.''

As use of the Internet has grown, so has e-commerce. According to the most recent comScore Networks report, Americans spent over $100 billion on Internet purchases during 2006, a major milestone for retailers and the World Wide Web. This legislation would ensure that online transactions are not taxed by cities or States at a rate higher than other sales transactions. Again, the goal of this legislation is to make the Internet affordable to all

Americans and foster the growth of the Internet.

With respect to the question of whether it is wise to make Internet access tax free, Congress has a long history of giving tax incentives to commercial activities that we believe help our society. The Internet is a technology that is a source of and vehicle for significant economic benefits. The proponents of this legislation strongly believe the Internet clearly merits the tax incentives provided by this bill.

I recognize that there are some who wish to continue to make the Internet tax moratorium temporary. Their premise is that the Internet will continue to evolve and thus Internet access may develop into a service the States and localities would wish to tax. I believe that this moratorium should be permanent to continue encouraging those very Internet-related innovations. By making the moratorium permanent, businesses that invest in and provide Internet access will be able to operate in a predictable tax environment. This will result in continued investment in this very important social, political and economic medium.

Congress now has the opportunity to extend permanently the Internet tax moratorium and assure consumers that taxes will not inhibit the offering of affordable Internet access. By supporting this legislation, we can continue to promote Internet usage by Americans as well as encourage innovation relating to this technology. For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to support this pro-consumer, pro-innovation, and pro-technology bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator DeMint

in introducing the Cell Phone Tax Moratorium Act of 2007. This bill would put a stop to new discriminatory taxes on cell phone services for a period of 3 years.

The average general sales tax in the U.S. today is around six percent, but the average State and local taxes and fees on cell phone service comes in at about 17 percent. Consumers are left paying a hefty portion of their monthly cell phone bill to the Government for what many believe is their most important communications device.

The National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Governors' Association have issued policy positions calling for states to eliminate excessive and discriminatory taxes on communications services. State and local governments have been working with the telecommunications industry to find a solution to these excessive taxes, but no agreement has been reached. During the three year moratorium, it is my hope that State and local governments--in cooperation with industry--will work to eliminate discriminatory taxes and fees on wireless services.

Excessive taxes dampen innovation, and are regressive, hitting the most vulnerable customers the hardest. Although more then 72 percent of all Americans own a cell phone, 26 percent said they could not live without it because it is their only communications source, according to a recent Pew Internet and Life Project report. Cell phone only owners are often those who find it difficult to afford a wired and a wireless phone. Additionally, according to the same report, 74 percent of the Americans say they have used their cell phone in an emergency and gained valuable assistance.

Some State and local governments cannot move beyond the idea that wireless services are some kind of luxury item that can be taxed at a higher rate. These services may have been a luxury item many years ago, but due to deregulation wireless services are more affordable than ever and even necessary for personal or business reasons. This is why it is perplexing that some states burden cell phone subscribers with taxes and fees that can be as high as 24 percent of a consumer's total bill.

Tax rates as high as this are generally associated with cigarettes and alcohol and known as ``sin taxes'' designed to reduce consumption. I cannot imagine it is the intention of states and localities to reduce consumption of wireless services.

Mindful of the revenue requirements of States and localities, this bill does not eliminate existing discriminatory taxes. Nor does the bill prohibit states and localities from imposing new taxes on wireless services that are not discriminatory. The bill simply puts a stop to the creation of new discriminatory taxes on cell phone services.

Last year I introduced similar legislative language during a mark-up in the Senate Commerce Committee. The amendment passed with a vote 21- 1. I am hopeful that this bill will once again be supported by the Commerce Committee and that it will be approved by the full Senate. I ask my colleagues to join me in ending the discriminatory sales taxes on this very popular communications service.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Feingold, Collins, and Lieberman in introducing a bill to provide greater transparency into the process of influencing our Government, and to ensure greater accountability among public officials.

The legislation proposes a number of important and necessary reforms. It would provide for faster reporting and greater public access to reports filed by lobbyists and their employers under current law. It would require greater disclosure of lobbyists' contributions and payments to lawmakers and entities associated with them, as well as fundraising and other events they host. the bill also would require greater disclosure from both lobbyists, and Members and employees of Congress, of travel that is arranged or financed by a lobbyist or his client.

To address the problem of the revolving door between Government and the private sector, the bill would strengthen the lobbying restrictions on former senior members of the Executive Branch, former Members of Congress, and former senior congressional staff. It would require that Members publicly disclose negotiations they are having with prospective private employers to ensure there is no conflict of interests. The bill also would modify the provision in current law that exempts former Federal employees who go to work for Indian tribes as outside lobbyists and agents from the revolving door laws.

The bill would prohibit all gifts from lobbyists to lawmakers and their staff. To ensure that such a ban is not circumvented, the bill also would require Members of Congress and their staff to pay the fair market value for travel on private planes and the fair market value of sports and entertainment tickets. Members and staff would also have to post the details of their privately-sponsored work trips on-line for public inspection.

The bill would establish an independent, non-partisan Office of Public Integrity. Armed with a number of investigative tools, the Office of Public Integrity would investigate alleged misconduct by Members and their staff and make appropriate recommendations to the Senate Ethics Committee for final disposition.

Finally, the bill would help us combat wasteful, porkbarrel spending. It would amend Congressional rules to allow lawmakers to challenge unauthorized appropriations, earmarks, and policy riders in appropriations bills.

Mr. President, when I introduced similar legislation over a year ago, I regretted that such reform was even necessary. And, I voted against the bill that was ultimately passed in the Senate because it lacked a number of elements essential to true reform.

Unfortunately, the need for such reform has only become more acute. The American people's faith and confidence in this venerable institution has steadily eroded. The day after the mid-term elections, CNN reported that, according to national exit polls, voters were concerned about corruption and ethics in Government more than any other issue. I can tell you the polls, if not spot on, are not far off.

During my travels around the country last year, it quickly became clear that there is a deep perception that we legislators do not act on the priorities of the American people, that special interests, and not the people's interests, guide our legislative hand. This loss in confidence is not limited to a single party or ideology; rather, it cuts across the spectrum. It is a perception bred by recent Congressional failures and scandals, which I need not chronicle here.

We can begin to restore faith in this institution by divesting ourselves of some of the perks and privileges that have somehow crept into public service. Take, for example, free meals and sports and entertainment tickets. The American people have rightfully come to see the abuse of such perks as a corrupting influence. In a string of guilty pleas last year, several lobbyists, former congressional aides, and a congressman admitted that such gifts were used as bribes. Quite frankly, there is no good reason why Members of Congress and their staff cannot forgo such gifts from lobbyists. No one would seriously contend that they are necessary for us to conduct the people's business. A total gift ban would go a long way towards restoring the public's confidence in us.

Another critical aspect requiring reform is the ability of a Member to travel on a corporate jet and only pay the rate of a first class plane ticket. This bill requires Senators and their employees who use corporate or charter aircraft to pay the fair market value for that travel. While I appreciate that such a change is not popular with some of my colleagues, the time has come to fundamentally change the way we do things in this town. Much of the public views our ability to travel on corporate jets, often accompanied by lobbyists, while only reimbursing the first-class rate, as a huge loophole in the current gift rules. And they are right--it is. I have no doubt that the average American would love to fly around the country on very comfortable corporate-owned aircraft and only be charged the cost of a first-class ticket. It is a pretty good deal we have got going here. We need to face the fact that the time has come to end this Congressional perk.

At a time when the public is questioning our integrity, the Senate needs to more aggressively enforce its own rules. We can do this not just by making more public the work that the Senate Ethics Committee currently undertakes, but by addressing the conflict that is inherent in any body that regulates itself. That is why I am again proposing the creation of a new Office of Public Integrity with the capacity to initiate and conduct investigations, uncolored by partisan concerns and unconstrained by collegial relationships.

Finally, Mr. President, if we are truly serious about reform, we need to address what some have coined the currency of corruption--earmarks. In 1994, there were 4,126 earmarks. In 2005, there were 15,877--an increase of nearly 400 percent! But there was a little good news for 2006 solely due to the good sense that occurred unexpectedly when the Labor HHS appropriations bill was approved with almost no earmarks, an amazing feat given that there were over 3,000 earmarks the prior year for just that bill. Yet despite this first reduction in 12 years, it does not change the fact that the largest number of earmarks have still occurred in the last three years--2004, 2005, and 2006.

Now, let us consider the level of funding associated with those earmarks. The amount of earmarked funding increased from $23.2 billion in 1994 to $64 billion in FY 2006. Remarkably, it rose by 34 percent from 2005 to 2006, even though the number of earmarks decreased! Earmarked dollars have doubled just since 2000, and more than tripled in the last 10 years. This explosion in earmarks led one lobbyist to deride the appropriations committees as favor factories. The time for us to fix this broken process is long overdue.

Mr. President, this past election, the American people sent a clear message: clean up the way business is done in our capitol. As faithful public servants, we are obligated to respond. Let us respond meaningfully, to assure the American people that we are here promoting the interests of main street over that of K Street, and that we are more interested in public service than the perks and privileges offered us. Let us also remind ourselves that we came here in the sincere belief that public service is a noble calling, a reward unto itself.

I therefore urge my colleagues in joining me on this bill. I think our Nation and this venerable institution will be all the better for it.

Mr. President, back in 1962, Marshall McLuhan wrote, ``The new electronic interdependence recreates the world in the image of a global village.'' Certainly, 40 years later, that concept is truer than ever. As we prepare for the future in this global village, we need to affirm America's leadership role in the world.

The United States accounts for one-third of the world's spending on scientific research and development, ranking first among all countries. While this is impressive, relative to GDP, though, the United States falls to sixth place. And the trends show that maintaining American leadership in the future depends on increased commitment to research and science.

Asia has recognized this. Asia is plowing more funding into science and education. China, in particular, understands that technological advancement means security, independence, and economic growth. Spending on research and development has increased by 140 percent in China, Korea and Taiwan. In America, it has increased by only 34 percent.

Asia's commitment is already paying off. More than a hundred Fortune 500 companies have opened research centers in India and China. I have visited some of them. I was impressed with the level of skill of the workers I met there.

China's commitment to research, at $60 billion in expenditures, is dramatic by any measure. Over the last few years, China has doubled the share of its economy that it invests in research. China intends to double the amount

committed to basic research in the next decade. Currently, only America beats out China in numbers of researchers in the workforce.

Today, I am pleased to introduce the Research Competitiveness Act of 2007. This bill would improve our research competitiveness in four major areas. All four address incentives in our tax code. Government also supports research through federal spending. But I am not addressing those areas today.

First, my bill improves and simplifies the credit for applied research in section 41 of the tax code. This credit has grown to be overly complex, both for taxpayers and the IRS. Beginning in 2008, my bill would create a simpler 20 percent credit for qualifying research expenses that exceed 50 percent of the average expenses for the prior 3 years.

And just as important: The bill makes the credit permanent. Because the credit has been temporary, it has simply not been as effective as it could be. Since its creation in 1981, it has been extended 11 times. Congress even allowed it to lapse during one period.

The credit last expired in December of 2005. After much consternation and delay, Congress passed a two-year extension just last month, extending the credit for 2006 and 2007. These temporary extensions have taken their toll on taxpayers. In 2005, the experts at the Joint Committee on Taxation wrote: ``Perhaps the greatest criticism of the R&E credit among taxpayers regards its temporary nature.'' Joint Tax went on to say, ``A credit of longer duration may more successfully induce additional research than would a temporary credit, even if the temporary credit is periodically renewed.''

Currently, there are three different ways to claim a tax credit for qualifying research expenses. First, the ``traditional'' credit relies on incremental increases in expenses compared to a mid-1980s base period. Second, the ``alternative incremental'' credit measures the increase in research over the average of the prior 4 years.

Both of these credits have base periods involving gross receipts. Under the new tax bill enacted last month, a third formula was created, which does not rely on gross receipts and is available only for 2007. My bill simplifies these credits by using this new credit only, known as the ``Alternative Simplified Credit,'' based on research spending without reference to gross receipts. The current formulas hurt companies that have fluctuating sales. And it hurts companies that take on a new line of business not dependent on research.

This new, simpler formula in my bill would not start until 2008. That start date would give companies plenty of time to adjust their accounting.

The main complaint about the existing credits is that they are very complex, particularly the reference to the 20-year-old base period. This base period creates problems for the taxpayer in trying to calculate the credit. And it creates problems for the IRS in trying to administer and audit those claims.

The new credit focuses only on expenses, not gross receipts. And it is still an incremental credit, so that companies must continue to increase research spending over time. Further, this bill adds a mandate for a Treasury study to look at substantiation issues and ensure that current recordkeeping requirements assist the IRS without unduly burdening the taxpayer.

A tax credit is a cost-effective way to promote R&E. A report by the Congressional Research Service finds that without government support, investment in R&E would fall short of the socially optimal amount. Thus CRS endorses Government policies to boost private sector R&E.

Also, American workers who are engaged in R&E activities benefit from some of the most intellectually stimulating, high-paying, high-skilled jobs in the economy.

My own State of Montana has excellent examples of this economic activity. During the 1990s, about 400 establishments in Montana provided high-technology services, at an average wage of about $35,000 per year. These jobs paid nearly 80 percent more than the average private sector wage, which was less than $20,000 a year during the same period. Many of these jobs would never have been created without the assistance of the R&E credit.

My research bill would also establish a uniform reimbursement rate for all contract and consortia R&E. It would provide that 80 percent of expenses for research performed for the taxpayer by other parties count as qualifying research expenses under the regular credit.

Currently, when a taxpayer pays someone else to perform research for the taxpayer, the taxpayer can claim one of three rates in order to determine how much the taxpayer can include for the research credit. The lower amount is meant to assure overhead expenses that normally do not qualify for the R&E credit are not counted. Different rates, however, create unnecessary complexity. Therefore, my bill creates a uniform rate of 80 percent.

The second major research area that this bill addresses is the need to enhance and simplify the credit for basic research. This credit benefits universities and other entities committed to basic research. And it benefits the companies or individuals who donate to them. My bill provides that payments under the university basic research credit would count as contractor expenses at the rate of 100 percent.

The current formula for calculating the university basic research credit--defined as research ``for the advancement of science with no specific commercial objective''--is even more complex than the regular traditional R&E credit. Because of this complexity, this credit costs less than one-half of 1 percent of the cost of the regular R&E credit. It is completely underutilized. It needs to be simplified to encourage businesses to give more for basic research.

American universities have been powerful engines of scientific discovery. To maintain our premier global position in basic research, America relies on sustained high levels of basic research funding and the ability to recruit the most talented students in the world. The gestation of scientific discovery is long. At least at first, we cannot know the commercial applications of a discovery. But America leads the world in biotechnology today because of support for basic research in chemistry and physics in the 1960s. Maintaining a commitment to scientific inquiry, therefore, must be part of our vision for sustained competitiveness.

Translating university discoveries into commercial products also takes innovation, capital, and risk. The Center for Strategic and International Studies asked what kind of government intervention can maintain technological leadership. One source of technological innovation that provides America with comparative advantage is the combination of university research programs, entrepreneurs, and risk capital from venture capitalists, corporations, or governments. Research clusters around Silicon Valley and North Carolina's Research Triangle exemplify this sort of combination.

The National Academies reached a similar conclusion in a 2002 review of the National Nanotechnology Initiatives. In a report, they wrote: ``To enhance the transition from basic to applied research, the committee recommends that industrial partnerships be stimulated and nurtured to help accelerate the commercialization of national nanotechnology developments.''

To further that goal, the third major area this bill addresses is fostering the creation of research parks. This part of the bill would benefit state and local governments and universities that want to create research centers for businesses incubating scientific discoveries with promise for commercial development.

Stanford created the nation's first high-tech research park in 1951, in response to the demand for industrial land near the university and an emerging electronics industry tied closely to the School of Engineering. The Stanford Research Park traces its origins to a business started with $538 in a Palo Alto garage by two men named Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard. The Park is now home to 140 companies in electronics, software, biotechnology, and other high tech fields.

Similarly, the North Carolina Research Triangle was founded in 1959 by university, government, and business leaders with money from private contributions. It now has 112 research and development organizations, 37,600 employees, and capital investment of more than $2.7 billion. More recently,

Virginia has fostered a research park now housing 53 private-sector companies, nonprofits, VCU research institutes, and state laboratories. The Virginia park employs more than 1,300 people.

The creation of these parks would seem to be an obvious choice. But it takes a significant commitment from a range of sources to bring them into being. To foster the creation and expansion of these successful parks, my bill will encourage their creation through the use of tax- exempt bond financing. Allowing tax-exempt bond authority would bring down the cost to establish such parks.

Foreign countries are emulating this successful formula. They are establishing high-tech clusters through government and university partnerships with private industry.

Back in 2000, a partnership was formed to foster TechRanch to assist Montana State University and other Montana-based research institutions in their efforts to commercialize research. But TechRanch is desperately in need of some new high-tech facilities. It could surely benefit from a provision such as this. I encourage my Colleagues to visit research parks in their states to see how my bill could be helpful in fostering more successful ventures.

A related item is a small fix to help universities that use tax- exempt bonds to build research facilities primarily for federal research in the basic or fundamental research area. Some of these facilities housing federal research--mostly NIH and NSF funded projects--are in danger of losing their tax-exempt bond status. Counsel have notified some state officials that they may be running afoul of a prohibition on ``private use'' in the tax code, because one private party has a superior claim to others in the use of inventions that result from research.

The complication comes from a 1980 law. In 1980, Congress enacted the Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act, also known as the Bayh-Dole Act. The Bayh-Dole Act requires the Federal Government to retain a non- exclusive, royalty-free right on any discovery. In order to foster more basic research through Federal-state-university partnerships, we need to clarify that this provision of the Bayh-Dole act does not cause these bonds to lose their taxexempt status. And my bill directs the Treasury Department to do so. I understand that the Treasury Department is aware of this significant concern. Whether or not Congress enacts my legislation, I hope that the Treasury Department will clarify the situation soon.

The fourth major area that my bill addresses is innovation at the small business level. Last year, representatives of a number of small nanotechnology companies came to visit me. They told me that their greatest problem was surviving what they called the ``valley of death.'' That's what they called the first few years of business, when an entrepreneur has a promising technology but little money to test or develop it. Many businesses simply do not survive the ``valley of death.'' I believe that Congress should find a way to assist these businesses with promising technology.

Nanotechnology, for instance, shows much promise. According to a recent report, over the next decade, nanotechnology will affect most manufactured goods. As stated in Senate testimony by one National Science Foundation official last year, ``Nanotechnology is truly our next great frontier in science and engineering.'' It took me a while to understand just what nanotechnology is. But it is basically the control of things at very, very small dimensions. By understanding and controlling at that dimension, people can find new and unique applications. These applications range from common consumer products-- such as making our sunblocks better--to improving disease-fighting medicines--to designing more fuel-efficient cars.

So, to help these small businesses convert their promising science into successful businesses, my bill would establish tax credits for investments in qualifying small technology innovation companies. These struggling start-up ventures often cannot utilize existing incentives in the tax code--like the R&E tax credit--because they have no tax liability and may have little income for the first few years. They need access to cheap capital to get through those first few research- intensive years.

The credit in my bill would be similar to the existing and successful New Markets Tax Credit. The New Markets Credit has provided billions of dollars of investment to low-income communities across the country. In my bill, entities with some expertise and knowledge of research would receive an allocation from Treasury to analyze and select qualifying research investments. These investment entities would then target small business with promising technologies that focus the majority of their expenditures on activity qualifying as research expenses under the R&E credit.

In sum, my bill would boost both applied and basic research. It would boost research by businesses big and small. And it would foster research by for-profit and non-profits alike.

McLuhan's quote about the global village was taken by many at the time as a wake-up call to a changing world. Since then, many more leaders in this village have emerged. Let us work to see that the next big technological advance is discovered here in America. Only through continued commitment to research can We ensure that it is.

Mr. President, there is a monster in the tax code. Like Frankenstein, the Alternative Minimum Tax brings back to life higher taxes. Higher taxes that families had been told not to worry about are brought back because of the Alternative Minimum Tax, or AMT. It is a monster that really cannot be improved. It cannot be made to

work right. It is time to draw the curtain on this monster.

That is why I am pleased to join with my friend Chuck Grassley, and our fellow Committee colleagues, Senators Schumer, Kyl, and Crapo to introduce legislation today that will repeal the individual AMT. Our bill simply says that beginning January 1, 2007, individuals will owe zero dollars under the AMT. Further, our bill provides that individuals with AMT credits can continue to use those credits up to 90 percent of their regular tax liability.

If we don't act, in 2007, the family-unfriendly AMT will hit middle- income families earning $61,000 with three children. What was once meant to ensure that a handful of millionaires did not eliminate all taxes through excessive deductions is now meaning millions of working families, including thousands in my home State of Montana, are subject to a higher stealth tax. It is truly bizarre that we've designed a tax that deems more children ``excessive deductions'' and punishes duly paying your State taxes. Already, 5,000 Montana families pay a higher tax because of the AMT. But this number could multiply many times over if we don't act soon.

Not only is the AMT unfair and poorly targeted, it is an awful mess to figure out. The National Taxpayer Advocate has singled out this item as causing the most complexity for individual taxpayers.

Of course, repeal does not come without cost and that cost is significant even if we assume the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts aren't extended. We are committed to working together to identify reasonable offsets. Certainly, I don't think we want a tax system unfairly placing a higher tax burden on millions of middle-income families with children. But it doesn't serve those families either if our budget deficit is significantly worse.

Like Frankenstein's monster, the AMT brings a most unpleasant reaction from those whom it encounters. It is time we end this drama and repeal the AMT.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Trade Adjustment Assistance Improvement Act of 2007 with my good friend and colleague, Senator Norm Coleman.

In 2006, the United States passed, signed or concluded no fewer than five new free trade agreements. This June, the President's authority to negotiate trade agreements will expire. Congress should extend the President's authority to negotiate these deals. But when we do, we must raise the bar higher than before. Each deal must surpass the last, in order to take advantage of and adjust to changes in the global marketplace that affect American businesses and workers.

Congress will consider these agreements on their merits. In most cases, these deals will mean more access for American producers and service providers. In some few cases, these agreements could mean more and fiercer competition for producers and providers here at home.

Competition is the engine that drives market economies like ours. It spawns innovation and creates new jobs. But just as jobs are created in new sectors of our economy, jobs are also lost in other sectors which experience sudden or unfair competition from abroad.

Whether and how effectively we help those firms and workers who feel the negative effects of our national trade policy will, in large part, determine whether and how effectively we can move a trade agenda forward this year.

During the last several Congresses, we have experienced unprecedented change in the global marketplace and in our labor market at home. I have worked to raise the bar on our efforts to help workers affected by these changes. Today, I propose again, more urgently than ever, that Congress and the administration work together to adapt our national worker adjustment strategies to the challenges of globalization. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Improvement Act is a first and necessary step in that direction.

The Trade Adjustment Assistance Improvement Act includes many proposals that Congress should consider before the program expires this September. The Act extends coverage to more of the workers who are affected by trade and globalization. And the Act will improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the program.

For more than a century, the manufacturing sector drove the American economy. So, when President Kennedy decided to open the American economy to more trade, he established the Trade Adjustment Assistance program to help workers in the manufacturing sector adjust to change.

Today, our economy depends upon service exports. More than 75 percent of the American labor force work in services. While many service sector jobs cannot be outsourced, technology change makes it possible to provide many services remotely, in such fields as accounting, healthcare, and computers and information technology. So when a large call center left Kalispell, Montana, three years ago for Canada, the Montana workers left behind did not have access to the same benefits that workers laid off from the Columbia Falls Aluminum manufacturing plant did. They should have.

Last year, the Department of Labor agreed, for the first time ever, that workers who produce software, an intangible product, should be eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance. That was a step in the right direction. We should take the next step this year. We should finally extend coverage to American service workers. That is what my bill proposes.

Trade Adjustment Assistance certification takes place on a case-by- case, plant-by-plant basis. This means that while two factories producing the same products may both experience foreign competition that leads to layoffs, often only one of those factories' laid off workers gets certified as eligible for the program.

Consider the softwood lumber industry. At least 12 out of 35 Trade Adjustment Assistance petitions filed by workers in Montana's softwood lumber industry over the last 7 years were denied by the Department of Labor. Yet, all of these mills were similarly affected by the same market conditions--dumped and subsidized Canadian imports. The International Trade Commission found that Canadian imports injured or threatened to injury the softwood lumber industry on a national scale.

But the Department of Labor's certification process does not take into account the bigger--and often more meaningful--picture. It simply relies on data provided by individual companies that lay off the workers to make its case-by-case determination.

The legislation that I introduce today makes industry-wide certification automatic for workers anywhere in the United States if the President, the International Trade Commission, or another qualified Federal agency determines that imports are harming that industry. My bill also authorizes, but does not require, the Secretary of Labor to make industry-wide determinations if she receives three or more petitions in one industry within one 6-month period, or if the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee pass a resolution requesting such an investigation.

We can anticipate and in some cases even prevent displacements by renewing and expanding our commitment to small and medium-sized American companies looking to recapture their competitive edge. One key, yet small program that can help prevent displacements and shifts in production to overseas is the TAA for Firms program in the Department of Commerce. The Firms program reaches out to companies that have experienced decreasing sales or production due to import competition and have laid off or expect to lay off workers.

This program is chronically under-funded, and it should also be available to service sector firms. This bill would authorize $50 million for this program to reach more small- and medium-sized businesses across the nation before they are forced to lay off their American workers and close their doors.

This bill also moves the Firms program from the Economic Development Administration at Commerce back into the International Trade Administration. That's where it was previously. And frankly that's where it ought to have remained. Despite the Firms program's proven track record, proposals related to the program under the Economic Development Administration have sought to either defund the program altogether, or to limit eligibility by increasing the profit-loss margin required for participation and arbitrary termination of firms after 2 years. The Firms program is a trade program and should be administered by an agency whose primary mission is to help American companies to adjust to and benefit from trade.

In 2002, with the passage of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act, I had great expectations for our first wage insurance demonstration project. In theory, wage insurance--or Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance--encourages swift re-entry into the workforce by replacing a portion of a worker's lost wages when a worker accepts a lower paying job within 6 months of a layoff. Workers who choose wage insurance over traditional Trade Adjustment Assistance training and income assistance often have less access to good training or simply cannot afford to be out of work during their training. Wage insurance provides an incentive for employers to hire lower-skilled and older workers and train them on the job.

In practice, I have been disappointed with the Department of Labor's implementation of the wage insurance proposal that we crafted in 2002. In a 2004 review by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Labor's implementation of the benefit came up far short of the mark. Last

year, the Government Accountability Office once again found that the Department needed to improve its implementation, focusing specifically on its outreach to and direction of state employment service offices.

I hope to work with the Department of Labor on strategies that will improve its outreach. Wage insurance can help put people back to work, and can even save money over traditional Trade Adjustment Assistance. But it cannot do either of those things if no one knows about the benefit.

This bill streamlines the process to qualify for wage insurance, and lowers the eligible age from 50 to 40. Wage replacement should be available to younger workers who would re-enter the workforce more quickly if they could afford the often steep wage cut.

Another key component of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act was the health care tax credit to help displaced workers and some retirees maintain access to health insurance coverage. As health costs grow, losing health insurance can be as financially devastating to workers as losing a job. While I still believe that the TAA health care tax credit holds promise, this is clearly an area where reforms are needed to help the credit achieve its purpose.

Today, the TAA health care tax credit helps only a fraction of the hundreds of thousands eligible for assistance. In its first 2 years, less than 6 percent of eligible workers and retirees enrolled. A GAO report released last year studying five major plant closings in 2003 and 2004 found that only 3 to 12 percent of eligible workers enrolled. More than half of the workers studied didn't sign up for the tax credit because the 65 percent subsidy was too low to make health coverage affordable.

The tax credit also suffers from complexity and administrative red tape. More than half of eligible workers in GAO's recent study didn't even know about the benefit. About a third of workers who knew about the benefit decided not to enroll because it was too confusing. Even those who understand it have to navigate complex rules and requirements to get the benefit.

We need to make this program simpler, more affordable, and more seamless so that more workers can take it up in the years ahead. We need to improve the information that workers and retirees get about the program and create systems to ensure that they get it. We need to cut down on the red tape. And we need to look at options to make this benefit more affordable so that we can truly reach the hundreds of thousands eligible for this benefit that Congress intended to help when we enacted these reforms 4 years ago. I plan to introduce a bill later in the year that will achieve these goals for reforming the health care tax credit and will look forward to working with Senator Coleman and other colleagues in this effort.

The forces of globalization, like trade and technology change, have created tremendous opportunities for American businesses and workers, from cutting the cost of living to increasing the margin of profit. Trade accounts for a quarter of our gross domestic product. The adjustments we have made to maximize trade's benefits save the average American household $9,000 annually.

But we must also make adjustments to respond to the challenges that come with globalization. American businesses in the 21st century face rapidly-changing consumer preferences and ever-swifter technological advances. Global competition is fierce. Innovation is the key to these companies' continued prosperity.

The same holds true for American workers. They know that they must adjust to changes in the labor market if they are to maintain their place in it. Workers must be prepared for one or more career shifts before retirement. They must acquire more skills, and refresh their skills more often.

We can help American companies adapt, and regain their competitive edge in the global marketplace. We can help more trade-displaced workers get back into the workforce. We should help these workers adapt not only to trade displacement, but to all the other aspects of globalization as well.

American workers and the companies that employ them must each continually adjust to a changing world marketplace. So too should our worker adjustment strategies.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business for half an hour, although I probably will not speak that long.

Mr. President, earlier this year I gave a series of statements on this floor on the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Back then, I said I was informing my colleagues because in the near future Congress would consider some fundamental changes in how the benefit works.

Well, for the entire Senate, the future is now. Last week the Senate Finance Committee marked up legislation on the so-called prohibition on Government negotiations under the Medicare prescription drug benefit. When I gave these four statements during February, I said it was important for the public and also for Medicare

beneficiaries to understand the proposed changes, and that it was equally important to explore the effects these changes would have.

Those reasons still hold true this very day. They are even more important now as the Senate gears up for action on that ill-advised legislation. I will inform my colleagues on this topic today, tomorrow, and the rest of the week, if I need to, because I want to make sure everyone understands the consequences of this legislation that is going to change the Medicare Program and hurt the Medicare Program, a program that is working; that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I am willing to talk about this issue until I am blue in the face.

First, everyone should recognize that political opponents of the drug benefit that we call Part D of Medicare have tried for 4 years to tear this benefit apart since day one. Day one dates back to December 2003, when the President signed the bill. These naysayers feel Government can always manage better. They want a Government-run benefit program of drugs in Medicare, and they want the Federal Government dictating drug prices, as if the Federal Government can dictate drug prices.

Thankfully, the naysayers lost when that legislation was being considered. But that has not stopped them from constantly whining and carping about the drug benefit that is now law. The naysayers said there would be no prescription drug plans. Then when there were plenty of prescription drug plans coming into the system, approved by the Secretary of HHS to administer to the seniors of America, they said there were too many plans.

The naysayers said it was too confusing, that the seniors would not be able to choose plans, even arguing that there would be a small number of seniors signing up.

But the seniors have enrolled. In fact, 92 percent of the seniors in America are covered by a prescription drug plan. And what about their satisfaction? Interviews show a great deal of satisfaction on the part of seniors with the plans.

Then the naysayers suggested plans could change their prices and the drugs they cover at the drop of a hat, which has not happened. So the naysayers were wrong again. They did all they could to taint beneficiaries' views of the benefits before it even got off the ground. But the naysayers' biggest criticism of the drug benefit is that, according to them, the Government does not negotiate with drugmakers for lower prices.

Now I will show you how silly that is and how wrong that is and, more importantly, how misleading that is. I say according to ``them,'' meaning according to the naysayers, because they have gone to great lengths to make it sound as though nobody is negotiating with drug companies. If you believe the naysayers out there, you would think that drug companies name their price and Medicare is forced to pay it. That is so wrong that it truly boggles the mind. It seems to me, as I see these arguments, there is no embarrassment on the part of the naysayers' part.

Now, it is correct, of course, that the Secretary of Health and Human Services himself does not negotiate with drug companies, but it is absolutely not correct to say there are no negotiations. That is complete and utter nonsense. It is embarrassingly wrong. Under the Medicare drug benefit, multiple drug plans compete against each other for the membership of seniors and disabled people covered by Medicare. These plans compete to get the lowest prices from manufacturers, for you as a member, because they want to keep you as a member.

In fact, these plans want to be the best negotiators and to offer beneficiaries the best possible drug plan with low premiums, low cost sharing, and even with additional benefits. They compete to be the plan that beneficiaries want to join.

Now, is this something new? No, it is nothing new. This is the same approach used for health care benefits for every Member of Congress, and 3 million Federal employees, under what we call the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program. If beneficiaries do not like the job their plan is doing, you can fire your plan. You can leave it, join another plan. You can choose a better plan. Yet, you see, it is actually very simple how this works; very simple. Harnessing the power of competition among plans gives the Medicare Program beneficiaries and the taxpayers access to better negotiation than anything the Government could do on its own.

In fact, there are five negotiators out there that are negotiating in a bigger way than even the Federal Government can. Can you imagine that, there are five negotiators that are bigger than the Federal Government that were negotiating this? Competition, then, is the mainstay of our free market economy. Businesses compete every day in almost every sector of our economy to produce the products consumers most want at a price that consumers pay, which is probably what consumers can afford.

But the naysayers of the drug benefit somehow do not like that. They are uncomfortable with the free market. They want the Government to run everything. They want the Government itself doing the negotiation. They find it hard to believe anyone could do a better job negotiating than big Government.

Of course, along the lines, they are ignoring the simple fact that competition is working. They are ignoring that competition has led to lower premiums, $22 this year instead of $23 last year, instead of $37 when we wrote the legislation.

They are ignoring that competition is bringing choices to beneficiaries, those who said we would never have choice, that you could not use plans because plans would not work. You know what. Those very Members of Congress are wrong, because in my State there are 43 plans. Will there always be 43 plans? No, I imagine there are some that are small, will weed themselves out, will be bought. These people are ignoring that the Government is not actually very good at figuring out what it should pay for drugs. They are ignoring the fact to carry on with the political scam that they committed against beneficiaries and against the public.

I have a chart I used a month ago that I want to show again. On it is a quote from the Washington Post, recognizing as well, when it wrote the following in an editorial, that this is a political scam and that governments don't do a very good job of negotiating:

Governments are notoriously bad at setting prices, and the

U.S. Government is notoriously bad at setting prices in the

medical realm.

We knew this because of the Government's experience paying for drugs covered by Medicare Part B. There are not very many drugs covered by Medicare Part B, but there have been a few and over a long period of time. What did we learn from that experience of Part B Medicare? These happen to be the drugs that are given during a physician's office visit or other drugs such as oral cancer drugs. Medicare payments for these drugs were based on what is called the average wholesale price, AWP. It is similar to a sticker price for a car. No one actually pays that price on the sticker of a car. The joke was that average wholesale price or AWP actually stood for ``ain't what's paid.'' Over the past decade, reports issued by the inspector general, by the Department of Justice, and by the Government Accountability Office found that by relying on average wholesale price, Medicare was vastly overpaying for these drugs. Recommendations were made to change payments so they reflected actual market cost. The Clinton administration tried to make some of these changes but after pushback from providers, it backed off.

Congress took another run at this issue in 2003 in the Medicare Modernization Act and was successful. Congress reformed how Medicare pays these drugs under Part B, not Part D. Medicare now bases its payment for many of these drugs on a market-based price, a real price, not the average wholesale price, not the ``ain't what's paid'' price because it wasn't paid. This change, believe it or not, is saving the taxpayers and beneficiaries, but it took years to get that fixed. In all that time, Medicare and taxpayers paid too many dollars for drugs, wasted money, billions and billions of dollars wasted. So using the Part B tradition, we don't want to make the same mistake. We don't want to repeat that experience under the new Part D of drugs for Medicare.

We also knew Medicare overpays for a lot of other services and equipment.

The bookshelves are full of other reports from the General Accounting Office, from the inspector general, from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, from the Congressional Budget Office, and others, about how Medicare is paying too much in too many areas. For example, Medicare overpaid for durable medical equipment for years until the Republican- led Congress made changes in the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act. In addition, each year the Office of Inspector General issues what is called the Red Book, which presents cost savings recommendations. The books are usually 50 or more pages long, and the recommendations span all aspects of Medicare--hospitals, physicians, home health care plans, and others. This is more evidence of the many areas where Medicare doesn't get the best deal.

Congress has even created the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, called MedPAC, to provide advice to Congress on payments for services. Every year, Congress hears recommendations from MedPAC to address Medicare overpayments, but many times it takes years for the Secretary of Health and Human Services or for the entire Congress to act to save the taxpayers money. In making recommendations, MedPAC looks at profit margins, for example. One type of provider had been found to have margins of 17 percent off of Medicare payments. The Congress has been able to act on many MedPAC recommendations, but it can be very hard to accomplish these changes. I remember when I was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee over the last 4 years. I received letters from Members saying something like: Please don't cut payments for this provider group or that provider group.

In fact, on the Senate floor just before recess, I fought to prevent this very Senate from freezing a Center for Medicare Services' rule that would have prevented wasteful spending in the program we call Medicaid. Is the rule a good thing or a bad thing? We didn't bother to hold the first hearing on the subject. The only thing that mattered was that a group of providers complained. Like the Clinton administration found, letters and complaints such as that can make it difficult, in the very short order, to do anything about a problem, despite the compelling evidence of overpayments, despite the high profit margins, despite the fact that a proposed change could save taxpayers billions of dollars.

Those of us who wrote the Part D Medicare drug plan passed 4 years ago--and that was mostly Senator Baucus for the Democrats and me for the Republicans--were concerned that this same kind of dynamic might happen with this Part D program. Political pressures on Medicare drug benefits would tie the hands of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If that happens, the programs would be unmanageable and costs would skyrocket. Instead, Congress put competing private plans in charge of negotiating. These plans and their negotiators have years of experience in this arena. This is what they do for a living. Health and Human Services has had very little experience and a very dismal track record.

On this chart, these plans and their negotiators and managers have powerful bargaining clout in the market. They manage the drug coverage for tens of millions of people. There are plans that cover upwards of 50 million people--75 million, in one case--far more than the 41 million Medicare beneficiaries. Clearly, Medicare beneficiaries account for a large number of all prescriptions filled each year, so some might argue that 41 million beneficiaries have more clout than 75 million nonbeneficiaries, but numbers alone do not necessarily translate into lower costs.

As evidence of that, we had all sorts of experts come before the Finance Committee in January on this very topic. In response to questions I asked, particularly of Professor Scott Morton of Yale University, he said it doesn't matter whether you negotiate on behalf of 1 million or 43 million people; what matters is what leverage you have and how you use that leverage.

I think I ought to emphasize that. It is how you use the leverage. So it is what is done to leverage those numbers, then, that leads to lower costs. That leverage comes from the plan being able to say to a drug company something such as: I can get a better deal on drug A from a different manufacturer that has the same clinical effect as your drug B. If you can't match it or do better, then I am going to leave the table.

Some plans will get a better deal on drug A and put it in their formulary. Some plans will get a better deal on drug B. But many experts agree--and experience suggests--that it would be difficult for the Government itself, our Government, to walk away from the table. There would be enormous pressure to cover everything. If it did, the negotiating power lies not with the Government but with the manufacturers.

Here is what Professor Scott Morton said would happen if someone negotiating drug prices couldn't have a formulary:

Each manufacturer would know that, fundamentally, Medicare

must purchase all products. The Medicare ``negotiator'' would

have no bargaining leverage, and therefore, simply allowing

bargaining on its own would not lead to substantially lower

prices.

At the same hearing, we had another witness. That witness was Mr. Edward Haislmaier, of the Heritage Institute. I would like to quote him from his written testimony:

[that] volume purchasing encourages manufacturer

discounting, it is not, in and of itself, sufficient to

extract large discounts. Manufacturers will only offer

substantial discounts if the buyer combines the ``carrot'' of

volume with the ``stick'' of being able to substitute one

supplier's goods with those of another.

In drug negotiations, that stick is called a formulary. Plans participating in drug benefits can use that stick. Expert after expert agrees it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the Government, however, to use that stick under Medicare. In fact, in a November 2 Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Dr. Allen Enthoven, an economist at Stanford University, wrote:

When the government negotiates, its hands are tied because

there are few drugs it can exclude without facing political

backlash from doctors and the Medicare population, a very

influential group of voters.

Let's be honest with each other. What do you think would happen in the Senate if the Center for Medicare Services, CMS, tried to cut a large drug company headquartered in New Jersey or North Carolina, for example, completely out of Part D because they wouldn't meet the Government's price demands? Would Senators from those States say something such as: Oh, well, that is just too bad? Would any of you say that if it was in your State that a manufacturer was being cut out? Again, let's be honest with each other.

What are we left with then? At the January Senate Finance Committee hearing, Professor Scott Morton said that without a formulary--the ``stick,'' as I refer to it--the Secretary would have about as much negotiating power as you would get by calling a drug maker and saying something such as: I would like you to offer a lower price. Their answer might be: Why should I? You have to buy my drug, so why would I offer you a lower price? About all you have left after that is: Please, won't you give me a lower price? That is not going to get you very far.

If my friends on the other side of the aisle think this bill is going to achieve real savings for consumers or the Federal Government, they must have some ideas in mind. I can't believe my friends would come to the Senate floor with a bill that is truly as ``do nothing'' as CBO describes it.

Here is what the Congressional Budget Office said about S. 3. It would have ``a negligible effect on federal spending.'' Another quote:

Without the authority to establish a formulary, we believe

that the Secretary would not be able to encourage the use of

particular drugs by Part D beneficiaries, and as a result

would lack the leverage to obtain significant discounts in

his negotiations with drug manufacturers.

So let me repeat that other quote: It would have ``a negligible effect on federal spending.''

The bill we are considering and voting on tomorrow cannot possibly be as innocuous or inconsequential as what the Congressional Budget Office said. Certainly, there must be creative ideas out there to find savings we have not considered.

Since the Finance Committee's markup of S. 3 the other night, I have been considering how a Secretary

might use his imagination to find savings. One of the first places we looked at was H.R. 4, the bill that passed the Senate.

H.R. 4 struck the language in the statute that prevents the Secretary from instituting a price structure for reimbursement of covered drugs. Did the House strike the ban because they want an imaginative Secretary to use price controls as part of negotiations? Because all we have heard is they do not want price controls.

Last Thursday night, we offered an amendment to S. 3 to prevent the Secretary from using a preferred drug list, or PDLs as they are called. A preferred drug list is just a formulary under a different name. It is essentially a Government-controlled list of drugs that you can or cannot have.

While I do not think there is a difference between formularies and preferred drug lists, we have seen the courts rule that a State can use one in Medicaid even though Medicaid bans the use of formularies.

So Thursday night, we had an amendment to prevent the Secretary from using preferred drug lists. After all, we do not want the Secretary coming up with a list of drugs you can or cannot take, do we?

To my surprise, the Democrats on the committee rejected my amendment. So what is going on? Perhaps they think that having the Government establish a preferred drug list is one of the imaginative ideas a Secretary will be able to use to save money.

I think this bill is a Trojan Horse. It is dressed up as a do-nothing message bill. But before the week is out, we are going to look inside that horse and see all the bad that could be waiting to hurt beneficiaries. We will see what is bad in this bill that will hurt access and choices beneficiaries currently have in this Medicare drug benefit program.

Maintaining access and choice--access and choice--is critical because beneficiaries have different drug needs. The way the benefit is structured now is that plans can have different formularies. Some might get a good price on one drug; another might get a better price on another drug. They can have different formularies, and beneficiaries can have choices that meet their needs.

When Congress finished work on the new drug benefit in 2003, we knew it was an experiment. Nothing like this had ever been tried. Here is what we learned: Private competition works. It has been successful at keeping costs down. The 25 most used drugs by seniors cost 35 percent less. Plan bids have come in lower than expected. This year, they were down 10 percent from last year's bids.

Premiums are lower than they were estimated to be. Before 2006, Medicare's chief actuary estimated the average monthly premium would be $37, but it was actually $23 in 2006. That is 38 percent lower than expected. Because of the strong competition between plans, the average premiums for beneficiaries is expected to be about $22 in 2007, not the $39 that had been estimated.

Why? Private competition works.

The net cost to the Federal Government is also lower than expected. In January, the official Medicare actuary announced that the net 10- year cost of Part D has dropped by $189 billion over the original budget window used when the Medicare Modernization Act was enacted. That is 2004 to 2013. That is a 30-percent drop in the actual cost compared to the projection.

Why? Because private competition works.

The savings are unheard of for a Government program of any kind. Where else have you ever heard of a cost underrun in a Federal program?

Mr. President, could I please have 4 more minutes? I ask unanimous consent for that additional time.

I wish to emphasize: We have a cost underrun in a Federal program. When have you ever heard of that?

You could not get those lower prices and lower costs unless the prescription drug plans are being strong negotiators with the drug makers. States are also saving money in lower contributions, better known as ``clawback'' payments. State clawback payments are now projected to be $37 billion less over a 10-year period. That is 27 percent lower. Just in 2006, States saved $700 million.

Why? Because private competition is working.

The plans are negotiating lower prices for drugs. I have said so many times, for the top 25 drugs used by seniors, the Medicare prescription drug plans have been able to negotiate prices that on average are 35 percent lower than the average cash price at retail pharmacies--35 percent lower.

Why? Because private competition is working.

Here are some examples: Lipitor is 15 percent lower, Atenolol is 63 percent lower, while Fosamax is 30 percent lower. I could go on down the list.

Now, when the drug benefit was signed into law, we believed it would work and hold down costs. That is certainly happening today even more than we expected because private competition works.

We also said that if it did not work--if the negotiating model used for the drug benefit did not hold down costs--then Congress would need to reexamine things. If costs grew too fast, then the whole idea would have to be revisited.

Maybe we would have to restrict access to drugs. Maybe we would have to rely more on mail order pharmacies instead of liberal access to local retail pharmacies. Maybe more drastic cost-cutting measures would be needed.

But that is not the position we are in today. Why? Because private competition works.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I think the naysayers out there need a little repetition therapy. Everyone has heard the old saying that ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' It certainly applies here, and the evidence shows it.

I would like to be the first one to say that the Medicare drug benefit is not perfect. There are improvements that can be made. Congress should look at ways to make it easier for low-income beneficiaries to get the additional assistance they need by reexamining the low-income subsidy asset test.

We need to look at payments to pharmacies and make some reforms in that area. We need to look at ways we can simplify the enrollment process. And there are other areas where we can make improvements.

But one area that is working very well is the negotiating power of Medicare drug plans. They have shown their ability to hold down costs. It is working.

The pleas from the naysayers to put the Government in charge of negotiating are about politics, not policy. These voices have not given up in their misguided quest to score political points with the drug benefit. It saddens me the Democratically controlled Congress has devoted so much time to this issue rather than looking at some of the improvements we can make in Part D that I mentioned.

Why they have put politics ahead of constructive changes is beyond me.

In January, I had hoped we could put politics aside and focus on some of the real improvements we could be making with the drug benefit. But, sadly, that is not the case, and that is why I am here today.

Under the drug benefit today, with the plans negotiating with drug makers and competing with each other, we have lower drug prices for beneficiaries, lower program costs for the Government--saving the taxpayers money--and prescription drug choices for beneficiaries.

Private competition works.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose S. 3. It is a big government takeover of the private market that is working for the Medicare benefit.

I yield the floor.