Small Business Jobs Tax Extenders Act of 2011

Mr. President, there is a silent epidemic in our country that today threatens the lives of more than 5 million Americans. Of those people afflicted with this disease, 150,000 will not survive this decade. In 2008 alone, an estimated 56,000 Americans were newly infected while as many as 75 percent of all infected people did not even know that they carried this disease. Without further preventative action, this growing health threat will only cost more lives and hundreds of billions in additional health care expenses. This ticking time bomb is viral hepatitis.

That is bad news. But there is also cause for hope.

Treatment already exists that can eradicate hepatitis C in close to 75 percent of people with the disease. Another treatment reduces the level of hepatitis B in over 80 percent of those treated. There has been a vaccine against hepatitis B for decades that has left millions immune to that strain of virus. We understand how viral hepatitis is spread, how it can be prevented, and how to test people for infection. There have just been a string of significant medical advances that will improve the effectiveness of viral hepatitis screening and treatment.

It is clear that we already have the tools at our disposal to prevent, treat, and control the vast majority of these infections, now what we need is a coordinated strategy to put these tools to work.

That is why I am introducing the Viral Hepatitis Testing Act of 2011, which appropriates $110 million over five years to improve education, testing, and care for viral hepatitis across Massachusetts and in local communities around the country. This legislation is a down-payment on a national effort to fight and ultimately eradicate hepatitis B and C in America. I hope

my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in cosponsoring this effort.

Viral hepatitis is known as a silent killer because it can stay a- symptomatic for years before it leads to serious liver disease. It is the most common cause of liver cancer and yet doctors and patients alike are often largely uninformed about this disease. Hepatitis B is 100 times more infectious than HIV and has spread to an estimated 2 billion people worldwide while hepatitis C has reached about 170 million people. Chronic viral hepatitis is widespread and it is dangerous.

Last year, the Institute of Medicine released a report outlining a number of specific recommendations on how to combat viral hepatitis. To build on those recommendations, Assistant Secretary of Health Dr. Howard Koh convened a task force and developed a detailed, comprehensive action plan to combat the pervasive spread of this disease. These recommendations served as the foundation for the legislation I am proposing today.

As of today, there is no coordinated national strategy in place to fight viral hepatitis. The action plan put forward by Dr. Koh and his team seeks to rectify that problem by incorporating standardized viral hepatitis prevention and treatment programs into the health care infrastructure that already exists. The bill I introduced today would quickly implement a number of these programs and provides the Department of Health and Human Services with the resources to act.

The first step in prevention is determining who is infected with the virus so they can receive the appropriate care and will be less likely to pass on this disease to others. In order to determine the prevalence of the problem and to increase the number of people who are aware of their infection, The Viral Hepatitis Testing Act calls for HHS to work with the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Preventive Services Task Force to develop and implement effective surveillance and testing protocols. Whereas 75 percent of people carrying viral hepatitis today do not even know they are infected, improved testing could flip that disturbing statistic on its head in just 5 years.

It is also a sad reality that a number of minority populations are at greatly increased risk for contracting viral hepatitis. Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders account for over half of chronic hepatitis B cases. African Americans, Latinos, and American Indians and Native Alaskans also have disproportionately high rates of these viruses. Additionally, without the proper preventative care, there is a high likelihood that pregnant women who carry the virus will pass it on to their unborn children.

For those reasons, the legislation I introduced today also focuses on screening and treating high-risk populations and pregnant mothers for viral hepatitis. Educational programs targeting high-risk groups will empower people to protect themselves from contracting hepatitis, and ensuring that people who have viral hepatitis receive the appropriate follow-up care will further help to prevent the spread of this epidemic.

Additionally, providing doctors with the proper training on the causes, symptoms, and treatments would also go a long way toward stemming the tide of transmission and improving outcomes for patients who have contracted the disease. This legislation makes supplemental viral hepatitis training for health care professionals a priority.

To do the things we need to do in order to save lives and control this deadly epidemic, we are going to have to make a relativelodest investment. The Viral Hepatitis Testing Act appropriates $110 million over 5 years that will go toward implementing the educational, screening, and treatment measures required under this act. Rather than creating a whole new hepatitis prevention apparatus, this funding will be used to integrate these new and improved procedures into the existing health care infrastructure through grants to public and nonprofit private entities, including States, Indian tribes, and public:private partnerships.

The human benefits of this legislation are undeniable--these provisions will reduce transmission, improve the quality of life for people with viral hepatitis, and prevent the deaths of countless mothers and fathers and children. It is also undeniable that this is a wise investment of resources and good policy. These investments are a classic case of using limited resources to maximum impact, as we invest a modest amount of money today in order to save lives, pain, and tens of billions of dollars tomorrow.

Today, hepatitis B costs patients around $2.5 billion per year. With baby boomers aging into Medicare and accounting for an estimated two out of every three cases of chronic hepatitis C, medical costs for treating this disease are expected to skyrocket from $30 billion to more than $85 billion in 2024. Late diagnosis is a significant driver of costs, as more expensive procedures and treatments are required the further the infection has progressed. To put this in even starker terms, the cost of the hepatitis B vaccine ranges from $75 to $165, while treatment can cost up to $16 thousand per year for a single person, or up to $110 thousand per hospital visit, should the disease develop into liver cancer.

Viral hepatitis is an increasingly significant issue for Massachusetts. The Department of Public Health reports over 2,000 cases of newly diagnosed chronic Hepatitis B infection and 8,000 to 10,000 cases of newly diagnosed chronic Hepatitis C infection each year. Viral hepatitis is the highest volume of reportable infectious diseases in the state. Additionally, there continues to be a striking increase in cases of hepatitis C infection among adolescents and young adults in the State, which suggests that there is a new epidemic of the disease taking hold.

Until recently, the Massachusetts State Legislature provided $1.4 million for surveillance to detect outbreaks and behaviors of concern as well as for targeted screening and treatment of high-risk populations. Today, however, as this public health threat spreads, all of that funding has been eliminated due to budget cuts. Massachusetts receives just $104,305 from the CDC for an Adult Viral Hepatitis Prevention Coordinator. This is a valuable position but it is not nearly enough to support core public health services. The Viral Hepatitis Testing Act will allow Massachusetts to invest in a sustainable infrastructure that would improve health care for our citizens.

The choice is ours: we can either invest in preventative programs and more robust screening now or we can just let this epidemic continue to proliferate around the country and foot the bill later for the expensive surgical procedures, medicines, and hospital bills that will only continue to grow.

Without action, thousands more Americans will die year from preventa seases. We know what we need to do; now it is up to us to do it. Let us not make excuses. Let us lower health care costs for American families, improve the quality o our care, and save lives. I again urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. President, few things provide me with greater charity than conversations I have with people back home in Nebraska. I rise to discuss a few of those conversations I had just last week during our work period back home. I used this opportunity to meet with electricity providers serving Nebraskans across the great State of Nebraska, from the more populated areas such as Omaha, to smaller communities such as Hastings, NE.

It will come as no surprise, I believe to anyone, that the focus of their frustration, their anger is with the EPA. They feel they have been treated unfairly. They feel the Agency has not been straight forward or transparent. They feel they now have a target on their backs, and they know that compliance with the latest EPA regulatory bombshell is going to have a crushing impact on the communities they serve.

Their latest concern is a rule known as the cross-state air pollution rule or cross-state. The rule addresses airborne emissions that EPA claims cross State lines and may affect air quality in another State. EPA issued the final rule in July of this year. Let me repeat that. EPA issued the final rule in July of this year and then demanded compliance by January 2012.

That is 6 months. That is an impossibility and EPA knows it. Here is why it is an impossibility. This is especially relevant to my State. Nebraska was not included in the old version of the same rule, the so- called clean air interstate rule. We were not a part of it. The final rule changed dramatically from the proposed version.

For example, the required reductions increased dramatically from the proposed rule that was published in July of 2010. So Nebraska first found itself subject to this type of EPA rule in the proposed rule in July of 2010. Then the final rule arrives a year later and, boom, it is a dramatically different rule--more severe reductions in compliance in an almost laughable 6 months.

Basically, Nebraska gets a final rule thrust upon them and no opportunity to comply. That could not be more unjust. Draconian changes made in a final rule that depart so significantly from the proposed rule defeat the very purpose of our laws that prescribe how agencies are supposed to make rules. I ran one of those agencies as Secretary of Agriculture.

This process makes a mockery out of the rulemaking process. It makes public comments absolutely meaningless. What good does review of a proposed rule do when the final rule is so radically different from the original proposal? It also means the community regulated cannot plan and cannot fix the problem.

This is our government we are talking about. Utilities cannot go to their ratepayers and say: Look, we have to make changes. It is going to take some time and money, but here is our plan and here is how much it will cost as a ratepayer. EPA has totally shoved aside the traditional role that some State regulators play as an EPA partner in establishing clean air plans known as State implementation plans. In fact, in this case, the EPA established a Federal implementation plan, a one-size- fits-all national plan that completely rejects State efforts to manage compliance.

Our power providers and regulators are echoing this same message. There just is not enough time for them. Instead of 3 or 5 or 10 years that is needed, by administrative fiat, EPA has said: They get 6 months to rebuild a powerplant. Let me be crystal clear about what Nebraska's power providers did and did not do.

They did not say: We cannot change and we will not change. They did not say: Just leave me alone. What they did say to me, very clearly, is: We cannot waive a magic wand. We cannot do the impossible. We cannot put together the finance plan in 6 months. We cannot put a request for bid out and get the work done in 6 months. We cannot get a design plan written by a competent engineering firm. We cannot arrange for a plant shutdown. We cannot get the construction crews to our facility, especially as cold weather sets into our State between now and January 1 to rebuild the powerplants. It simply is not humanly possible.

What options are possible? Someone listening to me might ask: What options do they have? Unfortunately, the

first thing our providers are doing is just trying to understand the rule. That in itself is no small task, because as I explained, the rule is essentially brand new. The ink is barely dry. The EPA did a head fake. They said: Here is the rule and then completely changed it in the final rule.

Secondly, electricity providers are making plans--get this. They are making plans all across this country to decrease electric generation because of this rule. In Hastings, NE, ratepayers have been told to expect an increase in operating costs of at least $3.8 million per year. Including costs of retrofits for this rule and two others that are in the works by EPA, Hastings figures $40 to $50 million will be spent over the next 5 years.

Think about that for a second. Imagine $40 to $50 million for a community of 25,000 people. That is for Hastings and only if the utility can figure out how it can get it done. Guess who bears the brunt of these costs. Every Hastings resident with an electricity meter--not shareholders. This is not a big electric company. No shareholder equity will be drawn down, no preferred stock to be newly issued. We are, in our State, a 100-percent public power State. Just those folks in Hastings, NE, because they got swept into an EPA rule last July with a January deadline. Fremont, NE, another great Nebraska community caught in the crosshairs, has indicated the cross-state rule and two other EPA rules will cost customers about $35 million over the next 3 years.

In New York City or Washington, DC, $35 million may seem insignificant. But to the 25,000 residents of Fremont, NE, it is a huge deal. Similarly, the cross-state rule will cost the Nebraska public power district, our largest electricity provider, about $6 million next year in reduced revenue, as well as mandating about $40 million in costs before the end of 2012. Electricity providers across the State are all looking at purchasing power from other generators. The only way they can get compliance now is to reduce generation.

Of course, many neighboring utilities in the State are subject to the same final rule. Guess what. This is the problem across the country. So everybody is in the hunt, and the short compliance timeframe is likely to drive the price of energy even higher. Another option includes purchasing pollution credits on the open market. No one knows how much it will cost because the same comprised timeline affects the markets for credits.

People may have also noticed I have not mentioned the bid, the design, the implementation, the installation of pollution control equipment as a compliance strategy, because in our State, that possibility is not an option for us because of the EPA's timeline. Six months is not enough time, especially when the labor, the technical knowledge, the contractors, the financing are all being chased by our utilities subject to the same rule.

Is it any wonder people are frustrated? Is it any wonder at all? That is why today I am introducing legislation that addresses the way the EPA handled this rule. My bill takes a couple reasonable steps to address this unfair treatment, not only in my State but in 27 other States. First, under my bill, EPA is prohibited from dictating Federal implementation plans unless the Agency has given the State a sufficient amount of time to develop a plan.

The State must be given 2 years to put a plan in place. In addition, if my bill is enacted, EPA cannot choose to reject a State's plan if, as a result, compliance would immediately follow. In other words, my bill prohibits EPA from jamming States by rejecting their plans and requiring an unreasonable compliance timeframe. Finally, my bill says EPA's compliance deadlines are set aside for 3 years while States get a chance to put this together. The message of my bill is straightforward: Do not freeze out States. Do not jam us with a compliance schedule that everybody knows will not work.

Nebraskans, similar to everybody else, are tired of being treated as second-class citizens by an agency that has run amuck. I suspect the same is true of 27 other States. Nebraskans simply cannot believe EPA is hitting the accelerator on a rule that will drive up electricity bills in more than half the country with no way for States to comply.

I share their frustration. The EPA is in a constant thirst for power. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation, to introduce one small dose of common sense to this out-of-control agency.

Mr. President, today I speak in support of a bill I am introducing called the Healthy Kids Outdoor Act of 2011. This bill will help the development of locally-based plans that will encourage kids to enjoy one of our nation's most cherished past-times: recreating outdoors.

I am introducing the Healthy Kids Outdoors Act of 2011 with the support of Senators Gillibrand, Merkley and Bennet. My friend and colleague Representative Kind of Wisconsin is introducing companion legislation today in the U.S. House of Representatives. I want to thank Rep. Kind for his leadership on these issues over the years. I especially want to thank him for the opportunity to steal his good idea and appropriate it for myself in the Senate.

Specifically, the Healthy Kids Outdoors Act authorizes the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to provide grants, one per State, to eligible organizations for the development of State-level outdoor recreation plans. Working in cooperation with local partners, the eligible entities will develop plans designed to ensure that States have appropriate programs and infrastructure in place to help Americans effectively connect with the outdoors. These plans supplement current outdoor recreation planning by emphasizing how to use outdoor recreation resources and infrastructure, such as public parks, transportation and health systems, to facilitate outdoor activities. The plans supported by Federal funding under this act must be updated every five years based on evaluations of each state strategy and lessons learned from their implementation. Additionally, in order to ensure that state and local partners are contributing to this effort, funding recipients must provide a 25-percent non-federal cost share.

Finally, this bill requires the administration to develop a national strategy to get Americans active outdoors and evaluate the health impacts of the State strategies authorized under the legislation. The national strategy, to be developed with significant public participation, should align with the State strategies and identify barriers to and opportunities for outdoor activities.

Why is this important you might ask, especially at a time when we are looking at ways to cut spending and other programs?

We live in an increasingly sedentary world that makes it more difficult for our Nation to reach the heights that it can achieve. Today's society provides more distractions from active lifestyles and the natural world around us than ever before. This is particularly true among children, who spend on average just 4-7 minutes a day in unstructured outdoor play while spending an average of 7.5 hours a day in front of electronic media. Partially as a result of this, obesity has become a major public health problem. Today, one in three children is either overweight or obese, whereas only about 4 percent of children in 1960 were. Working together, we must find proactive ways to reverse this harmful trend.

Being overweight or obese can lead to many chronic health conditions, including heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. All of these conditions are costly for health care purchasers and patients, reduce quality of life, and are among the top 6 leading causes of death each year. The good news is that, in the vast majority of cases, obesity is completely preventable. Particularly for children, if we teach them good eating and fitness habits early in life, they will have a much better shot at maintaining a healthy weight later in life. In addition, research demonstrates the myriad mental health benefits of active lifestyles that make use of green spaces outside the home.

Furthermore, spending time in the outdoors, connecting with our public lands and waters and green spaces, furthers America's conservation legacy. For example, research demonstrates that hunters who become engaged in the sport as children are among the most active and interested sportsmen as adults.

Spending time in the outdoors also supports the outdoor recreation industry. We have a large and growing industry in this country of supply stores, manufacturers, guides, hotels, and other important businesses that are the backbone of many rural communities. In fact, outdoor recreation activities add over $730 billion to the national economy every year. In this time of economic uncertainty, outdoor recreation is one of the bright spots in our economy.

Additionally, at a time when disparities in health status and health insurance rates for minority populations are at an all-time high, particularly in my State of Colorado, the common sense goals of the Healthy Kids Outdoors Act can help level the playing field for good health across America. This legislation will make it easier for all Americans, regardless of cultural differences, geography or socio- economic status, especially children and families, to connect with healthy, active, outdoor lifestyles and the natural world. By doing so, we can combat the obesity epidemic, improve public health overall and bolster America's proud legacy of conservation and outdoor recreation economy.

Finally, I want to note that this bill could play a small role in making sure our children, as they reach adulthood, are qualified to serve in our U.S. military, if they so choose. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have seen firsthand the studies that have shown that greater and greater numbers of young adults are ineligible to serve in the Armed Forces due to disqualifying health factors such as being overweight. Nearly one in four applicants is rejected for being overweight, which is the most common reason for medical disqualification. It's not a stretch to say that a more fit population can result in a more secure nation.

This legislation is a small but important step we can take to promote healthy, active lifestyles supporting the use and enjoyment of our natural world. I want to thank the Outdoor Alliance for Kids, whose members include many of the country's leading conservation groups and outdoor recreation companies, for its support and help developing this bill. I also want to thank the Campaign to End Obesity for their endorsement of it. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Small Business Tax Extenders Act of 2011, targeted tax relief legislation to extend, for one year, the essential tax relief provisions that were included in the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010.

When the Small Business Jobs Act was crafted, I worked closely with Finance Committee Chair Baucus and then Ranking Member Grassley to ensure the critical small business tax provisions that reflected our shared priorities were included in that legislation. I sincerely appreciate all of their hard work on that legislation.

As the former Chair and now Ranking Member of the Small Business Committee, I am well aware of the urgent imperative of job creation in our country. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average annual unemployment rate for 2010 was 9.6 percent. For 27 out of the past 32 months the unemployment rate has been at 9 percent or above. About 45 percent of the unemployed have been out of work for at least 6 months--a level previously unseen in the 6 decades since World War II.

At a time when 14 million Americans are still unemployed, and have been so for the longest period since record keeping began in 1948, our government should be taking every possible step to ease the burden on job creators. We

must help create an environment that is conducive to small businesses' job creation. One critical way to do so is through targeted small business tax incentives.

That is why as a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, I have been urging this administration to champion tax reform and in fact, I led a panel on the issue as part of the Economic Summit at the White House more than 2 years ago.

The individual income tax form has more than tripled in length from 52 pages for 1980 to 174 pages for 2009. American taxpayers spend 7.6 billion hours and shell out $140 billion, or 1 percent of GDP, just struggling to comply with tax filing requirements. This is not surprising as there has been 15,000 changes to the tax code since the last overhaul in 1986.

Alarmingly, the tax code is also needlessly handcuffing our ability to compete in today's integrated global economy, as we strain under the second highest corporate tax burden in the industrialized world. While this administration and the Senate majority are pondering whether we should reform our tax code, small businesses continued to struggle with the current tax regime at the expense of creating more jobs and growing operations.

While I continue to advocate for comprehensive tax reform, there are certain measures that, although not a silver bullet, should be passed right away to help improve the economic environment for small businesses. The Small Business Tax Extenders Act of 2011 is a critical example. This legislation contains provisions I have championed for years to provide small businesses greater cash flow, incentivizing their investments, and increasing tax fairness.

The lifeblood of a small business is its cash flow and this bill contains several provisions to improve it. One of these provisions will address a fundamental injustice of the tax code by extending for another year deduction for health insurance premiums against not only income taxes but also against payroll taxes. At a rate of 15.3 percent, the self-employment, or SECA, tax is imposed on the health benefits of business owners. This is a costly injustice that makes health insurance just that much more expensive at a time when insurance costs are already prohibitively expensive.

In the coming year we will certainly see health premiums rise, making it all the more onerous on small businesses to provide critical benefits to their employees. Allowing the full deduction for health insurance is critical for its affordability. I was thrilled that we were able to address this injustice in the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, and I sincerely hope that this provision can be extended for another year.

This legislation will also extend for 1 year a provision permitting general business credits to be carried back 5 years and taken against the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT. Before the enactment of the Small Business Jobs Act, a business's unused general business credit could be carried back to offset taxes paid in the previous year, and the remaining amount could be carried forward for 20 years to offset future tax liabilities.

The 5-year carryback of credits will allow business owners to reach back to prior years when they had taxable income to offset prior tax liability with these credits and get immediate cash infusion. Business owners can use this cash as they choose, but as we have seen with net operating loss relief, they use these funds for anything from meeting payroll to investing in new equipment. The same principle applies with respect to the provision that allows credits to be used against the

Mr. President, today I introduce the Small Business Tax Extenders Act of 2011, targeted tax relief legislation to extend, for one year, the essential tax relief provisions that were included in the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010.

When the Small Business Jobs Act was crafted, I worked closely with Finance Committee Chair Baucus and then Ranking Member Grassley to ensure the critical small business tax provisions that reflected our shared priorities were included in that legislation. I sincerely appreciate all of their hard work on that legislation.

As the former Chair and now Ranking Member of the Small Business Committee, I am well aware of the urgent imperative of job creation in our country. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average annual unemployment rate for 2010 was 9.6 percent. For 27 out of the past 32 months the unemployment rate has been at 9 percent or above. About 45 percent of the unemployed have been out of work for at least 6 months--a level previously unseen in the 6 decades since World War II.

At a time when 14 million Americans are still unemployed, and have been so for the longest period since record keeping began in 1948, our government should be taking every possible step to ease the burden on job creators. We

must help create an environment that is conducive to small businesses' job creation. One critical way to do so is through targeted small business tax incentives.

That is why as a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, I have been urging this administration to champion tax reform and in fact, I led a panel on the issue as part of the Economic Summit at the White House more than 2 years ago.

The individual income tax form has more than tripled in length from 52 pages for 1980 to 174 pages for 2009. American taxpayers spend 7.6 billion hours and shell out $140 billion, or 1 percent of GDP, just struggling to comply with tax filing requirements. This is not surprising as there has been 15,000 changes to the tax code since the last overhaul in 1986.

Alarmingly, the tax code is also needlessly handcuffing our ability to compete in today's integrated global economy, as we strain under the second highest corporate tax burden in the industrialized world. While this administration and the Senate majority are pondering whether we should reform our tax code, small businesses continued to struggle with the current tax regime at the expense of creating more jobs and growing operations.

While I continue to advocate for comprehensive tax reform, there are certain measures that, although not a silver bullet, should be passed right away to help improve the economic environment for small businesses. The Small Business Tax Extenders Act of 2011 is a critical example. This legislation contains provisions I have championed for years to provide small businesses greater cash flow, incentivizing their investments, and increasing tax fairness.

The lifeblood of a small business is its cash flow and this bill contains several provisions to improve it. One of these provisions will address a fundamental injustice of the tax code by extending for another year deduction for health insurance premiums against not only income taxes but also against payroll taxes. At a rate of 15.3 percent, the self-employment, or SECA, tax is imposed on the health benefits of business owners. This is a costly injustice that makes health insurance just that much more expensive at a time when insurance costs are already prohibitively expensive.

In the coming year we will certainly see health premiums rise, making it all the more onerous on small businesses to provide critical benefits to their employees. Allowing the full deduction for health insurance is critical for its affordability. I was thrilled that we were able to address this injustice in the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, and I sincerely hope that this provision can be extended for another year.

This legislation will also extend for 1 year a provision permitting general business credits to be carried back 5 years and taken against the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT. Before the enactment of the Small Business Jobs Act, a business's unused general business credit could be carried back to offset taxes paid in the previous year, and the remaining amount could be carried forward for 20 years to offset future tax liabilities.

The 5-year carryback of credits will allow business owners to reach back to prior years when they had taxable income to offset prior tax liability with these credits and get immediate cash infusion. Business owners can use this cash as they choose, but as we have seen with net operating loss relief, they use these funds for anything from meeting payroll to investing in new equipment. The same principle applies with respect to the provision that allows credits to be used against the