[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 135 (Friday, December 8, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11658-S11674]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               TO AMEND THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986

  Mr. FRIST. I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from 
the House of Representatives on H.R. 6111.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Resolved, that the House agree to the amendment of the 
     Senate to the bill H.R. 6111, entitled an act to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and to provide that the Tax 
     Court may review claims for equitable innocent spouse relief 
     and to suspend the running on the period of limitations while 
     such claims are pending, with amendments.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. FRIST. I move to concur in the amendment of the House, and I send 
a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under rule XXII, the clerk will now report the 
motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment 
to H.R. 6111.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     concur in the House amendment to H.R. 6111: to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the Tax Court 
     may review claims for equitable innocent spouse relief and to 
     suspend the running on the period of limitations while such 
     claims are pending.
         Bill Frist, Johnny Isakson, Richard Burr, Jon Kyl, R.F. 
           Bennett, Christopher Bond, John Cornyn, Rick Santorum, 
           Mike Crapo, Jim Talent, Pat Roberts, Chuck Grassley, 
           Pete Domenici, Jim DeMint, John Thune, Kay Bailey 
           Hutchison, George Allen.

                           Amendment No. 5236

  Mr. FRIST. I now move to concur in the amendment with an amendment 
which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist] moves to concur in 
     the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 
     6111, with an amendment numbered 5236:

       At the end of the House Amendment, add the following:
       This Act shall become effective 2 days after the date of 
     enactment.

  Mr. FRIST. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 5237 To Amendment No. 5236

  Mr. FRIST. I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5237 to amendment No. 5236:

        Strike ``2 days'' and insert ``1 day''.

  Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Gregg be recognized 
in

[[Page S11659]]

order to make a point of order against the pending legislation; 
provided that Senator Grassley then be recognized in order to move to 
waive and that there then be 30 minutes equally divided, with the first 
15 minutes by Senator Grassley and the next 15 minutes by Senator 
Gregg, for debate, equally divided in the usual form; provided further 
that following that debate, the Senate proceed to a vote on the motion 
to waive and that if the motion to waive prevails, the Senate then 
proceed to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture, notwithstanding the 
provisions of rule XXII; I further ask that if cloture is invoked, the 
motion to concur with an amendment be withdrawn and the Senate proceed 
immediately to a vote on the motion to concur in the amendment of the 
House, without further intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, what we have just done is laid out a 
procedure whereby a point of order will be made. Senator Grassley will 
make a motion to waive. We will have a vote on the motion to waive the 
point of order, a cloture vote, and ultimately passage. There will be 
three votes. The first vote will be at approximately 12:30, 12:35.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this time, under the unanimous consent 
agreement, I will make my point of order.
  The pending bill violates three significant elements of the Budget 
Act. After I make the point of order, I know the Senator from Iowa, the 
chairman of the Finance Committee, is going to move to waive it. And 
then he has 15 minutes and then I will have 15 minutes and we will 
explain the reasons for the issue.
  So at this time, I make the following point of order.
  The pending motion to concur violates section 302 and section 311 of 
the Budget Act because it exceeds the Finance Committee allocation and 
breaches the revenue floor set under the fiscal year 2006 budget 
resolution. It would also increase the deficit in excess of the pay-go 
limit by $17.5 billion. I raise a point of order against the motion 
under section 302 and 311 of the Budget Act and section 505 of the 
budget resolution for fiscal year 2004.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to waive the budget point of 
order on the appropriate sections of this pending legislation.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered under 
the unanimous consent agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator seeking the yeas and nays?
  Mr. GREGG. If they have not been ordered under the unanimous consent 
agreement, I would ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 30 minutes of debate on the motion.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa, I understand, has 
the first 15 minutes. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: It is my 
understanding that the time now running is running against the time of 
the Senator from Iowa; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has the first 15 
minutes.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want my colleagues to understand that 
if this budget point of order is not waived, this legislation that we 
have been working on for a period of 8 months, and should have been 
passed in July--probably should have been passed in May, but for sure 
in July, and here we are still doing it--will not be passed.
  I want to comment on why, without hearing my colleague yet--and going 
before him, but anticipating from some statements that have been in the 
press--why he is wrong about his point of order against this 
legislation.
  Earlier today, there were comments made by my Republican colleague 
regarding the tax extenders bill. I would like to take a few minutes to 
clarify the record regarding the tax extenders bill.
  Three points:
  First is the claim that tax cuts are a budget buster, that it is tax 
cuts that are putting us in the red. Nothing could be further from the 
truth. We have seen tax receipts going up by a record amount. From 2004 
to 2005, receipts went from $1.8 trillion to $2.1 trillion. The 
calculators at the Treasury needed new batteries to count the new 
dollars coming in this year, increasing from $2.1 trillion to $2.4 
trillion--an 11.8-percent increase. These tax receipts far outpace what 
was projected in the budget, and, most importantly, the budget 
resolution we are currently operating under.
  The bottom line: Taxpayers are sending checks to the Treasury well 
over $100 billion in excess of what was expected under the budget 
resolution. We are now taking action to prevent what is effectively a 
tax increase. I never thought I would hear a Republican advocating we 
ought to have a tax increase. If we do not pass this legislation, 19 
million people are going to have tax increases.
  And let my colleagues absolutely be clear in understanding that 
failure to pass this legislation, then, is not just about nothing, it 
is about allowing tax increases to go into effect. And they would go 
into effect without even a vote of the Congress. Taxpayers, then, 
will be writing checks even bigger than this unexpected amount of money 
that is coming into the Treasury already, if this legislation does not 
pass. Teachers, parents of college students, working families will all 
have to dig deeper into their pockets to pay for out-of-control 
spending in Washington.

  Taxes are pouring into the Treasury. As I said earlier, it is not for 
the lack of tax receipts that we are seeing a deficit. It is because of 
the inability to control spending. In my time here in Washington, DC, I 
have never seen that the way to control spending is to keep taxes high. 
Higher taxes is a license to spend more money. And that is borne out by 
the facts. While tax receipts have gone up 11.8 percent in 2005-2006, 
spending has increased 8.6 percent.
  It is important for my colleagues to also understand that much of the 
tax cuts that are in the tax extender package were expected to be 
included in the $70 billion tax cuts passed in the budget resolution--
the budget resolution out of the Budget Committee.
  I find it extremely frustrating that those who come to the floor and 
decry this bill fail to note it is because we made room for other 
priorities, priorities they championed, such as capital gains and 
dividend cuts in the tax reconciliation bill, that we were unable to 
include the tax extender provisions in that reconciliation bill last 
spring. And it is for that reason that we now have to consider an 
extender bill.
  It reminds me of the fellow who complains about not being able to get 
a BLT sandwich after he ate all the bacon. And speaking of bacon, one 
of the major pork products, I would now like to turn to the second 
point: the discussion on the floor earlier about earmarks.
  I know my colleagues who serve on the Appropriations Committee have 
familiarity with the term ``earmark.'' Earmark is something that goes 
to one individual or one company. That is not what this bill is about. 
But they have tried to characterize it that way. This bill provides tax 
relief, and these provisions provide tax relief that is not for one 
individual or one company. They are not earmarks.
  For example, the deduction for tuition will help--let me take a State 
at random. Let's take New Hampshire as an example. It helped 23,124 
taxpayers in the year 2004. These tax policies, then, are not earmarks 
when you are helping 23,000 taxpayers in New Hampshire. And failure to 
extend the tax extenders means that these taxpayers are going to have 
an increase in taxes.
  Earlier we heard on the Senate floor discussion about a tax provision 
that benefited songwriters. Again, this is not an earmark. As most 
Members who have been to a record store recently are aware, there is 
more than one songwriter in this country. But I raise the songwriter 
provision to respond to another point, which is that there are 
provisions in this bill that because of the Senate rules, Members will 
be prevented from effectively raising concerns.

[[Page S11660]]

  The songwriter provision, supported by several Members on both sides 
of the aisle, was voted on by Members earlier this year in the tax 
reconciliation bill. It already passed the Senate. The extenders bill 
is now making that provision permanent. Members had ample opportunity 
to raise concerns about this provision when it was considered 6 months 
ago. Not a discouraging note was heard. In fact, colleagues who 
discussed this provision earlier today actually voted for the 
legislation that contained the songwriter provision. Talk about saying 
one thing and doing another. So I think those who sang the first verse 
earlier in the year should be cautious about complaining that we are 
now singing the second verse.
  Finally, I want to comment about the point raised on the sales tax 
deduction. Again, you call that an earmark, when people in nine States 
who would not be able to deduct their State sales tax from their 
Federal income tax have the opportunity to do it? It is affecting 10 
million people, and that is an earmark? I find the statements made 
about the sales tax to be of concern and a misrepresentation of policy.
  First, my colleagues earlier heard complaints about the cost of the 
sales tax provision but then in the same breath complain that the sales 
tax provision does not cost enough, that the sales tax provision's flaw 
is it should be expanded to both itemizers and nonitemizers, which then 
would cost billions more.
  The easy answer is that the intent is to roughly mirror the deduction 
for State income tax that residents of the rest of the States have. The 
State income tax deduction is only for itemizers. So why would you want 
the sales tax deduction to be expanded to include nonitemizers?
  Second, the deduction for sales tax is only allowed in lieu of a 
deduction for the income tax. So the benefits that it provides to 
residents of States such as New York and California, who have both a 
State income tax and sales tax, is limited. But it does certainly 
provide real benefits to taxpayers who live in States without a State 
income tax but do have a State sales tax.
  The provision means that the Federal Tax Code will not treat 
similarly situated taxpayers differently based on how the State decides 
to raise revenue. The Finance Committee has seen no evidence that 
States have responded to this provision by raising the sales tax.
  I appreciate the opportunity to clear the record and separate facts 
from fantasy when it comes to this tax extender bill. These are 
important provisions that we need to act on now to ensure that 
taxpayers can properly file their tax returns and receive much-needed 
tax relief.
  Finally, the Congressional Budget Office has scored the total health 
package as costing $1.7 billion over 5 years. The $1.7 billion stems 
from the cost the Congressional Budget Office has attributed to making 
the Recovery Audit Contractor Demonstration a permanent part of the 
Medicare Program and implementing it on a nationwide basis.
  The 3-year demonstration project was authorized in the Medicare 
Prescription Drug Act of 3 years ago and requires the Center for 
Medicare Services to contract with the recovery audit contractors to 
detect Medicare overpayments and underpayments and to recoup 
overpayments. Typical overpayments involve improper coding or billing 
for services for which there is no medical necessity. Also, Medicare 
inadvertently pays for services when another payer, such as a worker's 
comp or auto insurance, should be a primary payer.
  Despite being implemented for a limited time in three States, this 
demonstration has already shown enormous potential for the 
identification of overpayments and underpayments and the recoupment of 
overpayments. In fiscal year 2006, this demonstration identified around 
$300 million in improper payments in three States. It is estimated that 
implementing this program on a permanent basis nationwide would result 
in approximately $8 billion in recovered funds being returned to the 
Medicare trust funds over 5 years. And somebody is bellyaching about 
investing $1.7 billion to bring back $8 billion.
  CBO has assigned a cost to this provision because of a budget scoring 
rule--some scoring rule that somebody ought to do something about--
called rule 14, which says that ``no increase in receipts or decrease 
in direct spending will be scored as a result of provision of a law 
that provides direct spending for the administration or program 
management activities.'' As a result, even though they are real and 
substantial, savings from this program will not be recognized for 
budget purposes.
  Despite the potential of a budget point of order, we have included 
this provision in the package because it is simply good policy. It will 
recover billions that would otherwise be wasted in the Medicare 
Program--some of it fraudulently wasted. For all these years, Medicare 
has not been able to effectively detect payment errors. The nationwide 
adoption of this program will result in real savings for the Medicare 
Program and, ultimately, the taxpayers.
  Mr. President, I wish to talk briefly about the issue of Red Cross 
reform. The Red Cross is one of the great institutions in this country. 
It is supported by millions of Americans with their volunteer work and 
contributions. Americans have a right to expect the best from this 
proud organization.
  On Monday, I shared with leadership staff on both sides of the aisle 
as well as interested members copies of legislation that brings much 
needed reform to the governance of the Red Cross. The Red Cross is 
congressionally chartered and therefore any reforms to the governance 
require changes in statute.
  As many of my colleagues know, I have been active in oversight of the 
Red Cross since problems came to light with the organization after the 
tragedy of 9/11. However, it was after the Katrina hurricane that it 
became evident that fundamental change was needed in how the 
organization was managed and governed.
  In response to my oversight, the Chairman of the Board Ms. Bonnie 
McElveen-Hunter called for an Independent Governance Advisory Board. I 
thank her for her leadership and responsiveness to the concerns raised.
  This board recently issued its report ``American Red Cross Governance 
for the 21st Century'' which can be found on their website. This report 
is based on the fine work of its Chair, Karen Hastie Williams as well 
as Peter Clapman, Professor Charles Elson, Margaret Foran, Professor 
Jay W. Lorsch, Patricia McGuire and Professor Paul Neuhauser. I thank 
them all for their service.
  The legislation that I shared with colleagues on Monday is based on 
the findings of the report from the Independent Governance Advisory 
Board which was approved by the Red Cross Board of Governors and 
released to the public on October 30, 2006.
  The legislation deals with such vital issues as the size and role of 
the board; the characteristics of who should serve on the board; the 
role of cabinet members in Red Cross governance; the creation of an 
ombudsman; the responsibilities of the Government Accountability Office 
and many other important matters.
  However, while the statutory changes are important, much of the hard 
work of changing the culture and governance of the Red Cross will have 
to be done by the management and board of the Red Cross. I expect them 
to look to the findings of the report as a close guide for their 
actions on the details.
  I am hopeful that this legislation, which has the support of the Red 
Cross, can be passed by unanimous consent quickly so that we can have 
in place a Red Cross that has effective and modern leadership for this 
Nation.
  However, I am deeply discouraged that despite the fact that this 
legislation has been cleared for several days on the Republican side it 
still has not been cleared on the Democratic side, and this despite the 
fact that the legislation has been originally cosponsored by Democrat 
Senators Kennedy, Landrieu and Akaka as well as Senators on this side 
of the aisle, Santorum, Enzi, Isakson, Martinez and Dole. As my 
colleagues all know, Senator Dole was the former President of the Red 
Cross. I am pleased to have all their support.
  But I am very frustrated that I have received no response or 
courtesies from the Democrat leadership of why this commonsense and 
needed legislation cannot be passed.

[[Page S11661]]

  I have been informed that staff in the other body have stated to Red 
Cross officials that they do not want to pass this legislation because 
they want it to be an early victory for the new Congressional 
leadership. I do not want to believe that that is the reason why there 
is no action on these reforms.
  The failure to act on these reforms is having a very real and very 
negative impact on the vital work of the Red Cross. I met with the 
Chairman of the Board of the Red Cross just two days ago and she 
informed me that the failure to pass this legislation quickly is 
hurting their efforts to successfully recruit and bring into place a 
new CEO. In addition, the needed changes to the governance structure at 
the Red Cross are also frustrated by the failure to make the necessary 
statutory changes.
  We saw with Katrina the need for strong leadership and governance at 
the Red Cross. The Red Cross has taken the right steps to make reforms, 
reforms that will lead to better service for the American people in 
times of need. The Democrat leadership should be placing those same 
priorities first. I call on them to allow us to go forward with passing 
this legislation.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in connection with H.R. 6111, the Tax 
Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on 
Taxation has made available to the public the following document: Joint 
Committee on Taxation, Technical Explanation of HR. 6408, The ``Tax 
Relief and Health Care Act of 2006,'' as Introduced in the House on 
December 7, 2006--(JCX-50-06)--December 7, 2006. This technical 
explanation expresses the Senate Finance Committee's understanding of 
the tax and other provisions of the bill and serves as a useful 
reference in understanding the legislative intent behind this important 
legislation.
  Senator Domenici wants a few minutes. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator can have 2 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise tonight to remind the Senate that 
in this bill is something we can all be proud of, especially on this 
cold night. The American people are using more and more natural gas in 
their homes, and they will soon be getting bills--or they already 
have--with the increases in the cost of natural gas beginning to show 
up. Many companies have already closed their doors because natural gas 
prices are so high.
  For the first time, we will have passed a production-oriented bill 
with reference to natural gas and crude oil. In this bill is the Gulf 
of Mexico Energy Security Act--passed by bipartisan votes in the 
Senate--which establishes some precedent because, for the first time, 
we are now going to do some deepwater drilling. We held that in 
abeyance for about 25 years and acted as if we didn't need any, just 
leave it there. It is American, but we won't use it.
  Well, we are going to start now. That will open other States which 
can look at this bill and say: We ought to join up and begin to let 
drilling take place off of our coast, because they will share in the 
proceeds--the second good precedent that is made in this bill.
  It will produce large quantities of natural gas over the next decade 
and a small amount of crude oil--1.2 billion barrels. With reference to 
natural gas, it will produce gas for millions of homes and thousands 
upon thousands of businesses. It will be American-owned business, 
drilled by American companies, supplied to Americans by Americans, with 
American dollars involved for everybody along the way.
  What a good thing to say tonight in the cold parts of America and in 
the coldness of tonight--that we have done something to produce natural 
gas and hold the price of natural gas where it is or reduce it because 
of the new supply. It is very important and should be something 
everybody in this Chamber is proud of. A lot of things we are not so 
proud of tonight. It takes too long to get some things done. We have 
not gotten a lot of them done on time. We have not governed quite 
properly. But this is a good one. I am thankful to those on this 
conference for putting it in.
  I thank Senator Grassley, and I thank his counterpart here. On the 
House side, they had to accept it exactly as we put it in because if it 
came here differently, we would never get it passed. That happened. 
Thank you.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I will give 4 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, let me join my colleague from New Mexico 
in thanking the leaders of this bill, Senator Grassley and Senator 
Baucus, for their acquiescence to put this very important measure, 
which over 70 Senators voted earlier in the year to do, but to put it 
on this measure to make sure it passed.
  Mr. President, you have not been in this Chamber long, but you know 
this has been a debate which has gone on around Louisiana and the gulf 
coast for almost 60 years--literally since President Truman was 
President of this country and offered 37.5 percent to the State of 
Louisiana for a new industry. Well, that deal was never struck 60 years 
ago. Tonight, that arrangement, that compromise, that deal is being 
struck in the Senate. It is a good deal, a square deal for the people 
of Louisiana, Mississippi, the gulf coast, and the people of the United 
States, and it is going to open up 8.3 million acres of new 
opportunity--enough gas, as the Senator from New Mexico said, to fuel 
1,000 chemical plants for 40 years. That is a lot of gas. We need that. 
We need it right now. We need it today to preserve jobs in America and 
to keep our industries competitive. Those jobs are in every State in 
the Union, not just on the gulf coast. We are proud to be the 
producers, but people use this gas in industries all over the Nation.
  In addition, as you know--and the Senator from New Mexico has heard 
this story literally a hundred times--the great delta that supports 
this extraordinary resource for the Nation is literally washing away 
into the Gulf of Mexico, not just because of the channels that have 
been dug in some cases for the industry--that has had a minor impact--
but the damming of the Mississippi River, the leveeing of that river 
stopped its natural overflow, and a delta that took a thousand years or 
more to create, which is the home of hundreds of communities and 
literally tens of millions of people in this country, is at risk.
  We saw the pain, suffering, and the death in Katrina and Rita. This 
bill will help because that money is dedicated to that source.
  Finally, because of Senator Salazar and Senator Alexander, primarily, 
a portion has been set aside for the first time in the Nation for 
conservation royalty, so that the land and water conservation fund 
stateside is fully funded. All 50 States can use these great revenues 
which come in for parts of the greenspace.
  I thank Senators Martinez and Nelson from Florida. Without their help 
and patience, this bill never could have come together. The buffer of 
protection has been provided for Florida. They have chosen a different 
way, but the gulf coast is working together as a unit. Some of us are 
drilling, some are not, but we are all working toward the benefit of 
America.
  To all of the Senators along the gulf coast, including Senator Vitter 
from Louisiana, and particularly Senator Trent Lott, who put in 
countless hours to help us negotiate this bill, I thank him for his 
great and steady leadership.
  To Senator Frist and Senator McConnell, who kept this issue steady, 
it is really a testament to their leadership.
  So the people of Louisiana and the gulf coast are grateful that this 
provision is in the final package. It has been a long and tough battle 
but one of which we are very proud.
  I thank the Senator from Iowa for yielding.


                          capital gains income

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

[[Page S11662]]

  Under current law, the tax treatment of capital gain income from 
timber activities varies. The variance depends to a great degree on the 
form of the business entity that holds the timber. The top individual 
capital gain rate of 15 percent applies to capital gain from timber if 
the timber is held by pass-through entities. By contrast, capital gains 
from timber held by regular ``C'' corporations are taxed at the top 
corporate rate of 35 percent.
  Senators Smith and Lincoln filed an amendment for the Finance 
Committee reconciliation tax relief markup last year. The amendment 
aimed at addressing the differential treatment of timber capital gains 
among entities. A form of that amendment was included in the first 
round of negotiations on the trailer bill. The final form of the 
trailer bill agreement did not include the timber capital gains 
amendment.
  Since this issue was not fully resolved, and many Members remain 
strongly interested in the issue I would like to ask my friend, the 
ranking Democrat and incoming chairman, Senator Baucus, if he plans to 
further examine the issue in the next Congress.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the timber tax proposal has the support of 
some Senators, but it is not included in the Tax Relief and Health Care 
Act of 2006. I have concerns about the proposal. I am sympathetic with 
the basic policy concern motivating the bill's supporters--to make it 
more feasible for timber companies to remain in corporate form if that 
is the best way for them to maintain their competitiveness. However, I 
believe that we need to do further work to make sure that we have an 
appropriate long-term solution.
  I understand this may be a time-sensitive issue. As chairman of the 
Senate Finance Committee during the next Congress, I plan to work with 
interested Senators and with forest products companies to closely 
examine this issue and determine the appropriate long-term solution. It 
is my hope and expectation that this work can be concluded in a timely 
manner so that appropriate action can be taken to address the long-term 
competitiveness of the timber industry.


                                 haiti

  Mr. GRAHAM. The Haiti Hope Act, incorporated into the package that we 
are debating today, poses a serious threat to the American textile 
industry. This bill has had no hearings in the Senate, no opportunity 
for discussion, no opportunities for amendments, and the industry that 
this bill affects most has had no official opportunities to voice their 
concerns. While it is questionable as to how everyday Haitians will 
benefit from this deal, there is no doubt the deal will only exacerbate 
the problems the U.S. textile industry faces today.
  The provisions of this legislation will be difficult if not 
impossible for Customs to enforce. This could open the door to the 
transshipment of Chinese goods into the United States duty free. In 
order to ensure that Customs can enforce this legislation, Senator 
Dole, Senator Sessions and I request that the Senate Finance Committee 
hold a hearing prior to the President certifying that Haiti has met the 
requirements set forth in the legislation at which representatives of 
the textile industry can voice their concerns over the impact of this 
legislation.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I believe the Senators' request can be accommodated.
  Mrs. DOLE. I agree that it is outrageous that the Haiti bill in this 
package was never considered by any committee in the Senate, never 
properly debated in a committee or on the Senate floor. No Member has 
been given an opportunity to offer amendments to improve this 
legislation, and the U.S. industry that has most to lose from this bill 
was never given an opportunity to formally make its case before this 
body. I have long supported increased assistance for Haiti, and support 
measures to expand trade between Haiti and the United States, but this 
poorly designed bill would cause serious harm to the U.S. textile 
industry, potentially putting many North Carolina textile workers out 
of jobs. I believe this Haiti trade package needs to be thoroughly 
evaluated.
  Senator Graham, Senator Sessions, and I would also like to propose a 
change to the length of time in which the administration must certify 
that Haiti has met the conditions to receiving benefits under the act. 
I request that the senior Senator from Montana agree to work with us to 
pass legislation to amend the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 to 
provide the President up to 1 year to certify that Haiti has made 
sufficient progress in meeting the conditions in the act. This change 
will in no way preclude the President from certifying that Haiti has 
met the requirements of this legislation prior to 1 year from now.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I would be happy to work with my colleagues to make this 
change. Let me add that I have spoken with the incoming chairman of the 
House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Rangel, and 
he supports your requests as well.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Once again we are at the end of a Congress. It is late 
at night. The result is a vote tonight on legislation that people refer 
to simply as the ``tax extender'' bill.
  Much of it doesn't have anything to do with tax credits. The Haiti 
Free Trade Agreement is in this bill. The Vietnam Free Trade Agreement 
is in this bill. I have very real concerns about both of these 
provisions.
  They are important issues. They deserve careful study. These trade 
agreements deserve a hearing and thoughtful debate on the Senate floor. 
From what I know of these measures, I don't support them.
  Instead of treating these important provisions in the manner they 
deserve, we are forced to take a yes or no vote on the whole package. 
That means you have to take the good with the bad. We wonder why 
politics has such a bad name, and I would suggest we are looking at the 
reason right here tonight.
  We have worked to make sure that some of our concerns regarding these 
measures are addressed and believe they will be. Based on the 
assurances that we have received, I am going to vote in favor of this 
measure. The good of the bill is so important it outweighs the bad.
  I thank my fellow Senators who have worked hard to achieve some 
assurances that could lead to important improvements to the Haiti trade 
provisions. Clearly, the better approach would have been to bring these 
trade agreements up separately, allowing for full debate.


                treatment of sioux city, iowa buildings

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have been seeking a small change in the 
tax law that would simply undo a provision in the 1986 tax bill, 
eliminating the special treatment given to a few buildings in Sioux 
City, IA, allowing them to be treated like any other property under the 
general laws.
  The desire is to rehabilitate one of those buildings, an old historic 
hotel. It has long been boarded up. The goal is to renovate it for use 
as affordable elderly housing, an adult respite care facility and 
perhaps other uses. I believe the Finance Committee has been aware of 
the technical tax issues involved for a long time. The provision is of 
no or minimal cost to the Treasury. And, as I noted, the property's 
owners are not asking for special treatment but, unusually, are asking 
that they be treated like other taxpayers with a similar property.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator from Iowa. I am familiar with this 
problem and it is unfortunate that this provision has not been included 
in one of the recent tax measures. It is my intention to include this 
measure in a tax bill to be considered. And I expect to see it become 
law in the coming year.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Haiti trade 
provisions in this legislation. And I want to respond to some of the 
criticisms leveled at these provisions.
  Right now over two-thirds of Haitian apparel exports to the United 
States are made from fabric made in either the United States or a 
beneficiary country under the Caribbean Basin Initiative.
  Under the bill, it is true that Haiti can use fabric from third 
countries to produce apparel exports for duty-free entry into the 
United States.
  But to be eligible for such duty-free treatment, at least 50 percent 
of the value of the apparel must be attributable to Haiti, the United 
States, or another regional qualifying country.
  If, for example, Chinese-origin fabric is used to manufacture apparel 
in Haiti, only the value of the cutting and sewing counts toward the 
50-percent

[[Page S11663]]

value-added requirement. The value of the Chinese fabric itself does 
not count toward the requirement.
  And because fabric generally accounts for more than 50 percent of the 
value of a garment, the 50-percent value-added requirement will often 
mean that qualifying apparel must be made from fabric produced in a 
regional qualifying country to be eligible for preferential treatment.
  Moreover, the benefits are capped in the first year at 1 percent of 
United States apparel imports, which is less than current apparel 
imports from Haiti and equal to only 20 percent of the total level 
provided under the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
  Now, the bill does include a tariff preference level, but it is 
limited to woven apparel, not knits. And the level of the tariff 
preference level is equal to only 0.23 percent of United States apparel 
imports.
  The Commissioner of Customs wrote a letter to Chairman Thomas of the 
House Committee on Ways and Means stating that Customs remains 
committed to enforcing all textile trade laws. The Commissioner further 
indicated that Customs can, and will, enforce the textile provisions in 
this bill if they become law.
  The bottom line is that the Haiti trade provisions in this bill will 
help to spur economic growth and prosperity in the most impoverished 
country in this hemisphere. At the same time, these provisions do not 
threaten to significantly impact our domestic industry in an adverse 
manner.
  In addition, these provisions have been endorsed by a number of non-
governmental organizations, including Oxfam America and the 
International Policy Committee of the United States Conference of 
Catholic Bishops.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Haiti legislation, as well as the 
other trade provisions in this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be printed at 
the appropriate place in the Congressional Record, and I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly on this 
essential piece of legislation commonly referred as tax extenders.
  This is, in many ways, also an energy security bill that is worth 
being proud of.
  There are a host of important tax items here, many of which were 
implemented under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Now we extend many of 
these items through 2008.
  There are extensions of credit for electricity produced from 
renewable resources until December 31, 2008. This is clean energy 
produced from wind, biomass, geothermal and hydropower. It is critical 
to our Nation's future and these tax credits will play an important 
role in our energy security over the next decade.
  There are extensions of credits to holders of clean renewable energy 
bonds. There are extensions of credits for energy efficiency for homes 
and for commercial buildings.
  And, there are extensions of reduced excise tax rates for ethanol. 
The Energy bill of 2005 has helped in bringing about an economic boom 
to rural America. Analysis suggests that new biorefineries will result 
in 30,000 new jobs and will add $114 billion to the bottom lines of 
American households. These extenders help continue that momentum.
  All of these items and many more help move us closer to achieving 
energy security.
  Then, there is the big one. After much hard work and after hours of 
negotiations, Congress came together and crafted a bipartisan piece of 
legislation. We passed that bill with 71 votes in August and we pushed 
ever since to get that bill through the House and to the Senate. We 
fought for energy relief for the American people.
  The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act provides such energy relief, 
and I am thrilled that it is included in this tax extenders package.
  I thank the House Ways and Means chairman, Bill Thomas, and the House 
leadership, specifically Majority Leader John Boehner for showing 
interest in and moving this important piece of legislation. Also, 
importantly, I thank the Senate leadership on both sides of the aisle 
and Chairman Chuck Grassley for recognizing that this legislation is 
essential to the American consumer.
  It's cold outside and natural gas prices are rising as we heat the 
homes we live in and the buildings we work in. So me tell you what this 
vote on the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act does.
  This vote says that Congress win not sit by and watch natural gas 
prices climb by 400 percent. We will act.
  We will not sit back and accept the closing of scores of our chemical 
manufacturing plants. We will act.
  And, we will not sit back and watch as we continue to depend more and 
more on foreign oil while producing less and less domestic oil. We will 
act.
  And act we did. And relief is on the way.
  This legislation is critically important to American consumers and 
our economy. While the oil resources in this region are impressive, the 
vast reserves of natural gas are the real bonanza.
  Tens of thousands of feet under the sea-bed in this 8.3 million acre 
area that we open for leasing, American ingenuity will produce American 
oil and American natural gas for the American people.
  This area contains nearly 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 
1.26 billion barrels of oil.
  I believe that there is enough natural gas in lease sale 181 and 
lease sale 181 south areas to heat 6 million homes for 15 years.
  Because of this, the Wall Street Journal has called this OCS bill 
``an easy victory for the U.S. economy.'' And, on the other side of the 
political spectrum, the New York Times wrote that this bill meets ``an 
immediate need'' and is ``a reason to drill in the Gulf.''
  And, in this bill we recognize the will of the people in our energy 
producing States. We recognize the sacrifices made by the Gulf States 
in being America's energy coast for so many years. And, we recognize 
protections important to the people of Florida.
  This bill strikes the right balance. It is a blockbuster. It is a 
victory for this Congress, but more importantly, it is a victory for 
the American energy consumer.
  The Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke recently said that rising 
energy prices is posing a risk to our Nation's economic activity.
  I say, that with this vote, we help to lessen that risk. What we have 
done here is the most important thing we can do in the near term to 
reduce the price of natural gas and to boost our Nation's domestic 
energy supply.
  For that, the American people win tonight. 
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 6111, 
the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. This important tax relief 
legislation includes a number of provisions that are extremely 
important to my constituents in Wyoming. It deserves to be passed, and 
I am urging all of my colleagues to support this important bill.
  First and foremost among the provisions that I am supporting is a 
provision to reauthorize the Abandoned Mine Land, AML, Trust Fund for 
15 years. I have been working to reauthorize the AML trust fund since I 
was first elected to the Senate in 1996. As it currently operates, the 
AML trust fund does not work as intended and does not treat my home 
State fairly.
  The Federal Government has hijacked more than $550 million that was 
promised to Wyoming from a tax on coal produced in my State. We have 
legislation before us to correct this problem and to fix it so that 
Wyoming receives its fair share of funding in the future.
  This legislation has been a long time in the making, and it has broad 
support. Over the past year, I have worked with Senators Rockefeller, 
Santorum, Specter and Byrd to build a coalition that can support this 
important bill. The bill is supported by the coal industry. It is 
supported by the United Mine Workers of America, UMWA. It is supported 
by members from the eastern United States and members from the western 
United States. All of the stakeholders are in agreement that the AML 
reauthorization language that is included in this bill is the best 
language to fix the problem and move the issue forward.
  The legislation has many provisions that are important to my State. 
It returns the $550 million that was hijacked by the Federal Government 
over a 7-year period. I am pleased that it

[[Page S11664]]

does so in a way that allows Wyoming's legislature to determine their 
priorities for how that money should be spent.
  The legislation also ensures that Wyoming will continue to receive 
funding in the future for mining activities that occur within our 
State's borders. It does all this at the same time we direct more money 
toward reclamation in States where the reclamation work is needed.
  Finally, I wanted to see a reduction in the tax charged to Wyoming's 
coal companies. Some of the companies in my State do not have the 
problems associated with abandoned coal mines, nor do they have the 
orphan miner liability that is held by some companies. Those companies 
agreed not to fight an extension of the tax if it was reduced, and this 
legislation includes a slight reduction in the fee.
  The priorities of other members are also included in this bill, 
including provisions that shore up health care for orphan miners who 
fall into the Combined Benefits Fund. Those priorities include the 
addition of health care coverage for members who fall into the 1992 
fund and the 1993 Fund. Although the shoring up of those three funds 
was not a priority for me, this represents compromise legislation.
  Some opposition to this legislation comes from members who claim that 
it is too expensive. I would argue to my colleagues who are concerned 
with the cost of the bill that it is not as expensive as it appears at 
first glance. Money will continue to come in from collections of the 
AML fee, which will help to offset the cost. The Federal Government 
will also continue to receive significant revenues from coal production 
on Federal lands.
  However, unlike past monies that have been sent to the Treasury and 
that have been spent outside the act, this legislation will ensure that 
the funding is used for its intended purposes. Money that is supposed 
to go to the States will no longer be hijacked and spent on unrelated 
programs. Instead of those unrelated programs, the money that is 
intended to do reclamation will actually be used to further our 
reclamation goals. Money that is supposed to go back to the States will 
actually be sent to the States. Coal money will actually be used to 
help fix a coal problem.
  For those who do not like the health care portions of this bill, I 
share your heartburn. Wyoming does not have a significant number of 
orphan beneficiaries. However, it should be noted that the Federal 
Government has been spending Federal dollars to help provide these 
health care benefits for years, and there is nothing to suggest that we 
will stop funding these benefits. The Senators who represent the 
families who receive this health care continue to make sure the 
families receive it. Since miners' health care continues to be funded, 
we needed to find a way to fulfill the promise to the States. This 
legislation was such a fix.
  When a program is broken, we need to fix it. The AML program has been 
broken for years, and this legislation is an opportunity to fix it. It 
will send more money to reclamation and will return money to States 
that those States are owed.
  This is a good bill, and I am so pleased that we were able to include 
this reauthorization in H.R. 6111.
  AML reauthorization is not the only important section of this 
legislation. The bill also includes the extension of the State and 
local sales tax deduction. The State and local sales tax deduction, 
which is crucial for the residents of States without a State income 
tax, was included in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. However, 
this deduction expired this year. Because this deduction has expired, 
it is crucial that Congress act now to extend this important deduction. 
The State and local sales tax deduction is an issue of fairness. 
Residents who live in a State without a State income tax should not 
have to pay more in Federal taxes simply because they cannot take 
advantage of the State income tax deduction. While I would like to see 
this deduction become permanent, I am pleased that the option to deduct 
State and local sales taxes will be extended an additional 2 years 
through this legislation.
  In addition, I want to take a few moments to express my support for 
the extension of the New Markets Tax Credit program through 2008. This 
is a highly successful program that stimulates investment in low-income 
communities. Multiple communities within Wyoming have been able to take 
advantage of this tax credit. I am hopeful that with this extension, 
additional cities and organizations in Wyoming will be able to utilize 
this tax credit. I am also pleased that this legislation includes a 
modification to the New Markets Tax Credit program to guarantee that 
nonmetropolitan communities receive the proper allocation of qualified 
equity investments. This change in law is welcome news for the smaller 
communities throughout Wyoming.
  The final tax provision I will discuss today is the extension of the 
research credit. This credit has played a vital role in encouraging 
companies throughout the United States to expand their research 
efforts. Innovation and advancements in technology are critical to the 
progress of the United States. This research credit encourages 
companies to spend more of their financial resources on the discovery 
of new and innovative products and ideas. Without the ongoing research 
and development of American businesses, the overall economic outlook of 
our Nation would greatly diminish. It was crucial that this credit be 
extended and I am pleased that this legislation includes such an 
extension.
  Finally, I am pleased that H.R. 6111 includes a section to increase 
our domestic energy production. We need to increase our domestic energy 
production to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. 
Domestic energy production is akin to economic and national security. 
The Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, provision included in this act is 
based on S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act which the 
Senate passed in a bipartisan way on August 1, 2006.
  The OCS has tremendous untapped potential to meet the energy needs of 
our Nation. Energy that we need to heat our homes and energy that we 
use in manufacturing can come from this region. The OCS has energy that 
will help secure our food supply by lowering prices for farmers and 
ranchers who produce that food.
  The entire OCS is composed of 1.76 billion acres and there are 8,000 
active lease areas producing oil and natural gas. This production 
translates to approximately 20 percent of our domestic oil production 
and approximately 30 percent of our domestic natural gas production. 
Yet, of the 1.76 billion acres of potential production area, 85 percent 
of the coastal waters around the lower 48 States currently is off 
limits to energy development.
  Under this provision the Secretary of the Interior is directed to 
offer mineral leases in a specified area within 1 year of enactment. 
This action has the potential of producing 1.26 billion barrels of oil 
and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of domestic energy. This bill will provide 
enough natural gas to heat 6 million homes for 15 years, and so I am 
pleased that it was included in this bill.
  I thank my colleagues who worked on this important tax relief 
legislation. Specifically, I thank Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member 
Baucus for their efforts. I thank Senators Rockefeller, Byrd, Santorum 
and Specter for their hard work and dedication on the AML bill. This 
important legislation deserves to pass, and so I will be voting to move 
the legislation forward.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to support the 
legislation before the Senate today. As often happens at the end of a 
Congress, the leadership has negotiated a large and complicated bill to 
tie up many loose ends. And I believe that on balance this is a very 
good bill. While I am disappointed in some aspects of this agreement, I 
understand that, when legislating, hard compromises sometimes have to 
be made. I recognize how difficult it was for us to get this far.
  I want to thank the leadership, and especially Senator Grassley, the 
chairman of the Finance Committee, and Senator Baucus, our ranking 
member and incoming chairman, for working so hard and so long to 
protect the Senate's interests in very difficult and often frustrating 
negotiations. They were fierce negotiators, and they made sure that we 
would be voting on a bill that a substantial majority in the Senate can 
support. It was no easy feat given the circumstances and sometimes 
bitter disagreements between the two Houses, and at times, between

[[Page S11665]]

Members. The leaders of the Finance Committee deserve enormous credit.
  This bill includes a critical Coal Act and AML reform provision. And 
I would like to take just a few minutes to explain to my colleagues 
what this provision is all about. It is about protecting the health 
benefits of tens of thousands of retired coalminers and their widows 
who were promised lifetime health benefits by their companies and by 
their Government. It is about keeping a promise to the men and women 
who have sacrificed themselves to fuel our Nation's economic growth and 
continued prosperity.
  Historically, coal miners have bargained for their health benefits at 
the expense of other pension benefits and salaries because they have 
long known the grave toll that coal mining takes on a person's health 
and safety. This year's tragic and record string of mine deaths shows 
that remains true today. More than 50,000 coal miner retirees and their 
aged widows, average age of nearly 80, are counting on the health 
benefits that are protected in the Coal Act and AML reform provision. 
These coal miner retirees live in nearly every State of the Union, and 
they still believe that the promise of their health benefits will and 
should be kept. So do I.
  This reform will stabilize the coal miners' health funds and give 
retired miners some peace of mind that they will not face cuts in the 
health benefits on which they depend. That means the world to me. And 
Dixie Woolum, and the thousands and thousands of other retired miners 
and widows in West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Illinois, 
and Indiana--all across this Nation--deserve that peace of mind. They 
have had to bear so much in the coalfields, for so long. They deserve 
this peace of mind. They earned it.
  Specifically, the coal miners' health funds--the combined benefit 
fund, the 92 fund and the 93 fund--will receive annual transfers of 
monies from the interest on the AML trust fund, paid for by the coal 
companies. I think that is only fair. Before these changes, only the 
combined benefit and 92 fund could receive AML interest money to help 
compensate for its shortfalls--and the administration wrongly 
interpreted the original Coal Act to cap that amount. That 
misinterpretation of the original Coal Act provision has been fixed in 
this bill. The new provisions helping the 92 fund and the 93 fund are 
phased in over time, but the CBF will get a needed infusion of money 
next year.
  The AML/Coal Act provision is also about protecting the environment 
and health of communities where mining has left environmental scars--
many of which continue to pose significant health risks. This proposal 
reauthorizes the AML program for 15 more years, at a slightly reduced 
rate, and gives States back their unappropriated balances while more 
fairly distributing funding for historic coal production States like 
West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The AML program 
was part of the bargain when we reformed surface mining back in the 
late 1970s. We created a trust fund that is paid into by the coal 
companies that mine the land to ensure there would be money available 
to reclaim old mine sites. Hundreds of these sites remain unreclaimed. 
States have waited patiently for Federal dollars that have been 
parceled too slowly in the past. This provision will deal with the 
outstanding problem of AML reform at the same time it helps miners 
whose blood and sweat built up the AML trust fund in the first place.
  Today marks the culmination of a long, long fight--14 years now--to 
make sure that Congress lives up to its responsibilities to retired 
miners and their families. And I won't recap all of the ups and downs 
of the past 10-plus years, but I do need to personally thank a few 
people who finally made this possible.

  I am grateful to my distinguished leader and dear friend Senator 
Reid. As the son of a hardrock miner, Senator Reid appreciates what 
miners go through to bring us the natural resources that make our 
economy and standard of living possible. He has worked tirelessly to 
get these provisions passed. He is a trusted friend and an 
inspirational leader.
  I also need to thank the leaders of the Senate Finance Committee. 
Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus have an excellent relationship, 
built on working together and keeping their word. I know that they had 
to fight very hard to protect the AML provision, and they did so 
because they gave their word. That means a great deal to me. A great 
deal. I am very grateful for their efforts. I know that the same spirit 
of bipartisan respect and cooperation will continue under Senator 
Baucus' able leadership next year. I look forward to his tenure. I will 
not mention each of the superb Finance Committee staff members by name, 
but I must at least thank them as a whole. They are extraordinarily 
bright and hard working, and I know that today's victory would not have 
been possible without their absolute dedication.
  I also want to thank my friend and colleague on the HELP Committee, 
Chairman Enzi, who seized this issue when tax extenders were debated in 
the pension conference which he chaired. He has never given up on 
getting this done in this Congress, even when procedural tactics by 
some put it in dire jeopardy. He just never gives up when it comes to 
fighting for his State. I admire that very much. I am indebted to him 
for his work on this measure, as I have been for his efforts on mine 
safety. He is tireless and yet with a demeanor that never rankles. I 
cannot fail to mention the support of my longtime, dear friend Senator 
Kennedy. He was always on my side on this issue as well--as he is 
always on the side of our Nation's working men and women, whether our 
Nation's coal miners or anyone who puts in a hard day and struggles to 
meet the challenges of raising a family. He was there to help make this 
happen. This has been a true bipartisan effort. The way legislation 
should be done.
  I also need to thank my good friend and colleague from West Virginia, 
Senator Byrd. He has been my constant partner on West Virginia mining 
issues. As a leader of the Appropriations Committee, he has saved the 
day for many years, by appropriating funds to prevent benefit cuts to 
retired miners and their families.
  Finally, I cannot go without thanking the Senators from Pennsylvania, 
Mr. Santorum and Mr. Specter. From the beginning they have worked with 
me to make today's victory a reality. Senator Santorum reintroduced 
this proposal early this year, and even after a very difficult and 
hard-fought election, Senator Santorum continued to work hard for his 
constituents and pushed to make sure that his leadership did not give 
up on this provision. I know that our Nation's coal-mining families 
appreciate their hard work and dedication as much as I do.
  Now, obviously, this bill contains many more items than just the AML 
provision. Many of these provisions I have voted for several times 
already, and I am very happy to see that they will finally be enacted 
into law--the tax deductions for tuition expenses or teachers' 
classroom expenses, the research and development tax credit, the 
welfare-to-work tax incentives. These provisions should never have been 
allowed to expire, and I am pleased that Congress is done using them as 
a political football and will finally extend them as we should have 
done last year.
  This bill will also create new tax incentives to promote investment 
in mine safety equipment and the training of rescue teams that can help 
trapped miners. There is some work that remains to be done to make 
those incentives work as they should in the coalfields, and you can be 
sure I will be back to finish the job. Also, after years of inequity, 
this bill finally provides capital gains tax relief to members of the 
intelligence community who serve their country away from home. Both of 
these provisions are very important to me even though both need a 
little more work.
  For the record, I also need to point out that this bill has some 
serious shortcomings. Most notably, I am concerned about the potential 
consequences of some of the health savings account provisions that were 
included in this bill. In general, I believe that HSAs will make the 
problems with our health care system worse, not better. They do not 
increase access to health care for our large uninsured population, and 
worse, they threaten to undermine the risk-sharing on which our current 
system depends. I hope that the 110th Congress will take a serious look 
at how to really increase access to health care. I intend to push very 
hard on that front.

[[Page S11666]]

  But as I said at the beginning, Mr. President, I believe that on 
balance, this is a good bill. I am grateful to my colleagues who have 
been relentless in negotiating this bill, and I am pleased to support 
it.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased that the legislation to 
extend various provisions of the Nation's tax laws which is now before 
the Senate includes a 2-year extension of the $250 tax deduction 
available to teachers who incur out-of-pocket expenses to purchase 
classroom supplies. This extension builds upon the $250 tax deduction 
established by legislation which became law in 2001 as part of that 
year's tax relief package. The tax relief provided by that bill was 
later extended through the end of last year. I was proud to author that 
legislation, along with my good friends, Senator Warner and Senator 
Landrieu.
  Providing this deduction for teachers who buy classroom supplies is 
warranted by the facts. So often teachers in Maine and throughout the 
country spend their own money to improve the classroom experiences of 
their students. While many of us are familiar with the National 
Education Association's estimate that teachers spend, on average, $400 
a year on classroom supplies, other surveys show that they are spending 
even more than that. Indeed, I have spoken to dozens of teachers in my 
home State who tell me they routinely spend far in excess of the $250 
deduction limit--a few even as much as $1,000--on materials they use in 
their classrooms. At every school I visit, I find teachers who are 
spending their own money to improve the educational experiences of 
their students by supplementing classroom supplies. One such teacher is 
Debra Walker, who teaches kindergarten and first grade in the town of 
Milo, ME. She has taught for more than 25 years. Year after year, she 
spends hundreds of dollars on books, bulletin boards, computer 
software, crayons, construction paper, tissue paper, stamps and 
inkpads. She even donated her own family computer for use by her class. 
She described it well by saying, ``These are the extras that are needed 
to make learning fun for children and to create a stimulating learning 
environment.''
  Another example is Tyler Nutter, a middle school math and reading 
teacher from North Berwick, ME. After teaching for just 2 years, Tyler 
incurred substantial ``startup'' fees as he built his own collection of 
needed teaching supplies. In his first years on the job, he spent well 
over $500 out of pocket each year, purchasing books and other materials 
that are essential to his teaching program. This tax deduction is, in 
Tyler's words, ``a nice recognition of the contributions that many 
teachers have made.''
  The teacher tax relief we have made available since 2001 is a small 
but significant way of helping teachers shoulder the expenses they 
incur to do their jobs well. Extending this provision for another 2 
years demonstrates our gratitude and sends the right message to our 
Nation's teachers.
 Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to see H.R. 6111, the 
Tax Extender Act before us today. This legislation includes some very 
important provisions that extend retroactively several expired tax 
benefits that have been instrumental to keeping our economy growing and 
helping to provide tax equity to certain members of our society.
  Many of my colleagues on the Finance Committee have joined me in 
supporting Chairman Grassley's tireless efforts this year to extend 
these provisions since even before they expired on December 31 of last 
year. Unfortunately, our several attempts to do so were thwarted by 
difficult political circumstances that required that the extender 
package be deferred until now.
  It is amazing to me, and undoubtedly very puzzling to Utahns and 
Americans across the country, that a set of provisions that enjoys 
nearly universal support in the Senate and in the House of 
Representatives should be so difficult to pass. However, I am very glad 
to see that we have finally been able to push the extension of these 
important tax benefits across the finish line.
  First and foremost on the list of expired tax provisions that are 
extended in this bill is the credit for increasing research activities. 
The so-called research credit has been instrumental in this country in 
not only providing incentives for conducting an increasing amount of 
R&D among American companies, but also in keeping that research 
activity in this country in an environment where incentives to move 
research offshore are proliferating.
  Because so many of our trading partners are now offering generous tax 
and other incentives in an attempt to lure away U.S.-conducted 
research, extending the research credit is of paramount importance just 
so we can keep ahead of the competition.
  Some may question the value of a retroactive extension of the 
research credit, particularly when it has been expired for nearly a 
year. After all, it is difficult to argue that a retroactively provided 
incentive can have any real incentive effect, since the activity it is 
designed to induce has already taken place. I am very happy that my 
colleagues have recognized there is another important factor at work 
here.
  Practically all of my colleagues agree with me that the research 
credit would be more effective if it were made permanent. Senator 
Baucus and I and others of our colleagues have long worked and argued 
for making the credit permanent. Indeed, in 2001 the Senate passed a 
permanent research credit, but it was unfortunately dropped in 
conference with the House.
  However, because we have almost always extended the research credit 
seamlessly, it has become a sort of de facto permanent credit. And 
while a de facto permanent research credit is not as good as a de jure 
permanent research credit, there are certain benefits that we get from 
having even an expiring credit always available. I believe that because 
the credit has been retroactively extended every year, except for one, 
it is more effective in inducing research activities. I also believe 
that businesses in Utah and all over America have come to depend on the 
research credit being extended each year without a gap. Therefore, I 
believe that it is important to once again retroactively extend the 
credit to keep the faith that we have allowed to be built up around 
this tax benefit. Therefore, I am very pleased to see that the credit 
has once again been extended, retroactive to its expiration date last 
year.
  The legislation before us also includes the extension of some other 
important expired tax provisions. One important provision included in 
this bill is the retroactive extension of the deduction for school 
teachers for classroom expenses that they incur. As a major proponent 
of this legislation for many years, I was extremely pleased to see this 
provision included in the final bill.
  Our public school teachers are some of the unheralded heroes of our 
society. School teachers labor in often difficult and even dangerous 
circumstances. A historic turnover is taking place in the teaching 
profession. Unfortunately, these professionals receive an unfair tax 
treatment under our tax law. Specifically, teachers find themselves 
greatly disadvantaged by the lack of deductibility of professional 
development expenses and of the out-of-pocket costs of classroom 
materials that practically all teachers find themselves supplying. 
Furthermore, almost all teachers find themselves providing basic 
classroom materials for their students. Because of tight education 
budgets, most schools do not provide 100 percent of the material 
teachers need to adequately present their lessons. As a result, 
dedicated teachers incur personal expenses for copies, art supplies, 
books, puzzles and games, paper, pencils, and countless other needs. If 
not for the willingness of teachers to purchase these supplies 
themselves, many students would simply go without needed materials.
  I am pleased to see that this bill includes an extension of a 
teacher's tax credit which will help teachers, in some small way, to 
cope with these challenges and inequities. I believe much more must be 
done. That is why, earlier this year, I introduced the Tax Equity for 
School Teachers Act of 2006, S. 4027. S. 4027 will not only expand the 
tax credit teachers can take for school supplies, but also provide them 
a tax credit which will defer some of the increasing cost of training. 
I am hopeful we will be able to act on legislation similar to S. 4027 
next Congress, but I am very pleased to see this basic tax credit for 
teachers extended once again this Congress.

[[Page S11667]]

  I thank the Senate for the opportunity to address this issue today, 
and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I also applaud 
the leadership for including a retroactive extension of the provision 
offering a 15-year cost recovery period for certain leasehold and 
restaurant improvements. Failure to do so would mean an effective tax 
increase on many thousands of small businesses. Likewise, I am pleased 
to see that this bill has the foresight to include an extension of some 
energy tax provisions that have not yet expired. Some of these, 
including the credit for electricity produced from geothermal energy 
sources, are very important to my home State of Utah. It is refreshing 
to see that we are being a little more proactive and extending 
provisions before they actually expire. This represents a much more 
responsible public policy approach than waiting to act until the 
provisions have already expired.
  I would now like to highlight some of the health care provisions that 
are included in this legislation. First, I have been a strong proponent 
of ensuring that patients continue to receive access to quality health 
care by addressing the scheduled reduction in the Medicare physician 
reimbursement for 2007. This legislation prevents physician payment 
cuts in 2007 by freezing payments for physician services, and, as a 
result, doctors will receive a 0 percent update next year instead of a 
5 percent reduction. The bill also provides a 1.5 percent bonus-
incentive payment to doctors who report on quality measures in 2007. 
Finally, the provision provides a fund to promote physician payment 
stability and quality initiatives in 2008.

  I also am a proud advocate for providing Medicare patients continued 
access to needed therapy. More specifically, this legislation provides 
a 1-year extension of the exceptions process established in the Deficit 
Reduction Act of 2005 to allow Medicare beneficiaries to apply for 
additional physical, occupational and speech language therapy services 
if their treatment is expected to exceed the annual cap on therapy 
services. I am pleased that this provision was included in the 
legislation we are considering today.
  In 2003, I introduced legislation that was included in the Medicare 
Modernizations Act of 2003 to change the formula for Medicare 
reimbursement to physicians, since the previous formula penalized those 
practicing in rural States like Utah. The bill extends the new formula 
through 2007, which will continue to raise payments in certain rural 
areas.
  In addition, I fought to extend the availability of the Program of 
All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly, PACE, program, which is of interest 
to those providing long-term, acute care for frail elderly in rural 
areas, including Grand County in Utah. The legislation before the 
Senate would ensure that funds for the rural PACE grants are available 
through 2010.
  Another important component of this bill is the payment for 
administration of Medicare Part D vaccines. The legislation specifies 
that during 2007, the administrative costs for a vaccine covered by 
Medicare Part D are to be paid under Medicare Part B. However, 
beginning in 2008, the Medicare Part D coverage will include the 
administrative costs for vaccines covered under Medicare Part D. 
Several months ago, I brought this matter to the attention of the 
Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and I 
am pleased that this issue will be addressed through this bill.
  Also, the legislation includes a feasibility study on how to create a 
national database to collect data on elder abuse. Let me make it clear 
that I am extremely disappointed that the Elder Justice Act was not 
approved for the second Congress in a row. This legislation was passed 
unanimously by the Senate Finance Committee in both the 108th Congress 
and the 109th Congress. I want to let my colleagues know that I will 
continue to fight for passage of this legislation during the 110th 
Congress and it is my hope that my House colleagues will be more 
willing to work with me next year in passing this bill. We expect more 
than 78 million baby boomers to retire over the next three decades and, 
in my opinion, we owe it to our seniors to be more informed about elder 
abuse. Passing the Elder Justice Act is the first step toward 
accomplishing that goal.
  During my tenure in the Senate, I have repeatedly voted in favor of 
free trade. Most economists agree that free trade is not only in the 
United States best interest but in the interest of developing nations 
throughout the world. One of the most efficient ways that we can lift 
millions out of poverty is through free trade.
  However, since the end of the Second World War, the United States 
has, on a number of occasions, accepted nonreciprocal trade concessions 
in order to further important Cold War and post-Cold War foreign policy 
objectives. Examples include offering Japan and Europe nonreciprocal 
access to American markets during the 1950s and 1960s in order to 
strengthen the economies of our allies and prevent the spread of 
Communism. Other examples of this type of initiative include the 
Generalized System of Preferences, the African Growth and Opportunity 
Act and the Andean Trade Preferences Extension Act.
  In the past, we have afforded these unilateral trade preferences 
because of the strength of American exports. But times have changed. 
Our nation has not enjoyed a trade surplus since 1975 and last year's 
deficit widened to a record $726 billion, increasing to 5.8 percent of 
the gross domestic product from 5.3 percent in 2004 and 4.5 percent in 
2003.
  This is not say that I do not support the renewal of the Generalized 
System of Preferences, the African Growth and Opportunity Act and the 
Andean Trade Preferences Extension Acts. I do support their renewal.
  However, I share the concerns of the Chairman of the Senate Finance 
Committee, Senator Grassley, that blanket renewals are not in our 
Nation's best interest, especially when countries with rapidly 
expanding economies, such as India and Brazil, can avail themselves of 
the unilateral preferences granted in the Generalized System of 
Preferences. I am also very concerned that the Andean Trade Preferences 
Extension Act will be renewed for nations like Ecuador, whose 
government has nationalized American-owned corporations without paying 
just compensation.
  Therefore, I look forward to working with Senator Grassley and the 
in-coming chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, in 
order to better tailor our preference systems so that we help 
developing nations lift their populations out of poverty and craft a 
comprehensive strategy that will return American exports to the surplus 
column.
  Another issue included in this trade portion of this bill is the 
granting of Permanent Normal Trade Relations, PNTR, for Vietnam. For 
years, I have been very concerned regarding the religious freedom of 
the Vietnamese people. That was one of the major reason why in 2001, I 
voted against the Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement. However, I have 
been encouraged by a series of reforms that have occurred that 
culminated in the agreement on religious freedom between our two 
countries, in which Hanoi agreed to take steps that were designed to 
improve conditions for people of faith, particularly in the Central 
Highlands, which includes the Montagnards. Therefore, I will support 
PNTR for Vietnam but I pledge eternal vigilance to ensure that the 
Vietnamese Government lives up to its commitments and ensure the basic 
rights of its people.
  As to the economic benefits of granting PNTR for Vietnam, it is true 
that Vietnam currently enjoys a $5.3 billion trade deficit over the 
United States. However, it should be noted that Vietnam has been an 
important customer of high-value goods, especially aircraft. This 
includes being a launch customer for what promises to be one of the 
United States premiere export products of this century the 787 
Dreamliner.
  The adoption of the Vietnam PNTR will not assist in remedying the 
trade deficit between our two countries. The reason being, that unlike 
some free trade agreements that the United States has entered into, the 
United States does not grant Vietnam unilateral preferential access to 
United States markets. However, under the agreement Vietnamese tariffs 
on many U.S. agricultural products will be reduced from 27 percent to 
15 percent or less. The agreement also calls for the elimination of 96 
percent of the tariffs on scientific equipment. Scientific

[[Page S11668]]

equipment is a significant export for my home State of Utah.
  Therefore, I will support the Vietnam PNTR as a means for American 
companies to have greater access to this burgeoning market and as a 
means of closing the trade deficit with this Nation.
  Finally, I support the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through 
Partnership Encouragement Act. This is of course a matter which has 
been brought to our attention, in part, through the hard work of my 
friend Senator DeWine. I understand that with the enactment of this 
legislation tens of thousands of Haitians will find employment in their 
country. This is something that we must do. Haiti is the poorest nation 
in the Western Hemisphere, we must do all that we can to assist this 
nation, which is only 600 miles from our border, lift the heavy hand of 
poverty and begin to provide for a better life for its people.
  I would like to thank all of those involved in getting this important 
piece of legislation through both Congressional bodies and saving 
American taxpayers from an enormous tax increase next year.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. To begin with, I believe the time of the Senator has 
expired, unless I cannot count.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I should have 2 minutes left. I gave the Senator from 
Louisiana 4.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Under the unanimous consent agreement, I believe the 
Senator from Iowa had 15 minutes, then I have 15 minutes. I believe the 
time has run against the Senator from Iowa; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Can the Senator from 
Iowa reserve time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Iowa has expired.
  Mr. GREGG. Thank you.
  This is an embarrassing situation. It is embarrassing to be chairman 
of the Budget Committee in the Republican Party and have a bill brought 
to the floor of the Senate which does such a grievous harm to the 
budget, to the deficit, and to our obligations and responsibilities of 
fiscal fairness to our citizens.
  The budget was set up in a manner that would have allowed all the tax 
extenders the Senator from Iowa has so aptly and appropriately 
praised--and which I support--to have been put in place without any 
budget points of order against them. In fact, it was a result of 
efforts on my part that we created $106 billion of room within the 
budget so that we could do tax extenders dealing with things such as 
the R&D tax credit, dividends, and capital gains because I consider 
them to be extremely important, as does the vast majority of our 
conference.
  But what has happened here is that wasn't enough. This bill, which 
could have been done within the terms of the budget, now comes to us 
well over what were the original proposals, not only in the area of tax 
laws--and you may be able to defend some of the tax policy--but in the 
end, it is a spending policy. This is an omnibus spending bill. There 
is a lot of spending initiative in this bill that is inappropriate and 
not authorized. That is why we have a Budget Committee to step up and 
say: Listen, you want to put $4 billion in to move the responsibility 
for health care on certain coal mines from the coal mining companies to 
the taxpayers, and it is supposed to go through the authorizing 
committees and come to the floor; it is not supposed to be stuck in a 
bill like this.
  If you want to set up a phony mechanism to fund what should be done, 
which is a quick fix, a phony mechanism, if properly scored it would 
represent about $36 billion of new spending over the next 5 years. But 
because they set it up as a 1-year item, they were able to get around 
that. There is a budget point of order against that type of action.
  You want to do earmarks--and yes, there were earmarks. Regrettably, 
the Senator from Iowa misrepresented--if he was referring to me--my 
representation of what the earmarks were. I don't consider the sales 
tax to be an earmark. I consider it to be bad policy. I don't even 
consider it to be a budget issue.
  The Finance Committee has every right to stick that in the bill 
within the terms of the budget as long as they meet the budget 
requirements. It is a matter of policy. They chose that policy. I 
disagree with that policy. I think it puts States that don't have a 
sales tax at a disadvantage and puts low-income Americans at a 
disadvantage because they cannot deduct it. That is not an earmark. I 
never said that. To represent that I said that is inaccurate.
  What I said was that you shouldn't bring a bill to the floor that is 
so inappropriately over what the budget set out as the proper role for 
this committee in the area of tax policy and what the Congress voted 
for and which has spending in it which hasn't been authorized and which 
actually creates new mandatory programs which nobody even knows about 
or spent any time thinking about, which is going to cost us billions of 
dollars in the outyears. You shouldn't bring that type of bill to the 
floor to begin with as the Republican Party because it is wrong, 
outside of fiscal discipline, which is what we are supposed to stand 
for--at least you shouldn't bring it to the floor in a manner in which, 
say, you are not going to allow it to be amended, you are not even 
going to allow motions to strike to lie against it. You are going to 
cause us to vote on a message from the House? A message from the 
House--we are going to concur in a message from the House.
  We are not going to vote on the underlying substance of the bill. We 
are not going to be allowed to amend the underlying substance of the 
bill even though it adds $39 billion to the deficit. We are not going 
to be allowed to strike earmarks in this bill--and there are earmarks 
in this bill--such as the $150 million for the District of Columbia, 
the rum excise revenue sharing proposal for Puerto Rico, the special 
depreciation for ethanol, the extension of the tariff on ethanol coming 
into this country from Brazil, and the earmarks go on.
  We are not going to be allowed to vote on any of those items. A 
motion to strike, the most simple right any Senator should have on any 
major vehicle coming before the Senate is being denied to us.
  This is an omnibus bill that violates three sections of the Budget 
Act which were not put in place for arbitrary or technical reasons. 
They were put in place to try to deliver fiscal discipline to the 
Federal budget so that we don't pass on to our kids a lot of debt for 
expenditures which we want to do today.
  That is the basic problem we have as a Congress. We continue to do 
things around here so that we can claim back home that we made these 
decisions which spend money today, and then we take that bill and we 
give it to our kids who are not even born, our grandchildren who are 
not born. The purpose of the Budget Act is to keep us from doing that.
  These are real budget points of order. There are some budget points 
of order which I totally agree are technical. The Senator from Iowa has 
pointed out one about which he has a very good case. I will be happy to 
work with him to try to correct that situation. But these are not 
those.
  There is spending in this bill which is an affront to anybody who 
genuinely believes that we should be fiscally disciplined. It creates a 
new mandatory program of $4 billion which will take money, which should 
have been paid by the coal companies to support the health care of 
people who are harmed or going to be harmed, and put that cost on to 
the American taxpayers. It is called coal in the stocking, I think, in 
the Christmas season.
  There is this doctors' fix. I am 100 percent for the doctors' fix. 
Obviously, we should pay doctors fair compensation to keep them in the 
Medicare Program, but the understanding was we would but pay for it 
with real dollars, not some phony mechanism that came out of the House 
in the dying days of the House session, a phony mechanism which, if 
carried out to its natural extreme, will cost $36 billion over 5 years. 
We don't score it that way because they use an extra little mechanism 
to make sure it doesn't happen, saying it

[[Page S11669]]

will only be for 1 year, even though we know we will have the same 
problem next year.
  We should not have a bill on the floor of the Senate that cannot be 
amended that is filled with earmarks that exceed the budget. One can 
argue that maybe earmarks may make sense, and they do make sense in 
some instances, and as long as they are within the budget, because you 
are not spending more, you are not adding to the deficit. But this bill 
does spend more, as I have pointed out.
  I have said it on occasion that the job of the budget chairman is a 
touch thankless. In this instance, as I said, it is embarrassing 
because it is sort of that old Pogo line: We've met the enemy and he is 
us. The only people responsible for this is the party that is still in 
the majority. Sure, the other side is an accomplice. They understood it 
was being done; they were for most of this stuff. As I said, when they 
obtain power, I suspect their activities are going to be much more 
egregious in the area of spending discipline. Maybe they won't be. If 
we look at the record, I suspect one can argue that.
  But, quite honestly, the only people who are to blame in this little 
exercise are us. I just sort of thought that after the last election we 
might have said to the American people: Yes, we understand. You think 
we are supposed to be the party of fiscal discipline, and we haven't 
been. We are going to try to be now. We are going to try to correct 
that.
  We have been given another opportunity, those of us who were not up 
for election or survived reelection. We are going to try to do it a 
little better. We are not doing it better. We are just doing the same 
darn thing: spending money we don't have that our children are going to 
have to pay for.
  I regret it. My job is to point it out. I intend to do that. I 
recognize I am going to lose this point of order, probably 
overwhelmingly, but my job is to point it out.
  There are three points of order against this bill, and every one of 
them is real. Every one of them deals with money. Even the Senator from 
Alaska should probably support them.
  One is a 302-point of order that deals with the fact that it is 
billions of dollars over the allocation of the committee. Another is 
the fact that it spends more than the committee is allocated. And the 
third, ironically, is the pay-go point of order that we have heard so 
much about from the other side.
  It is an interesting situation we confront here. As we close this 
Congress, I hope we will show a little fiscal discipline and vote for 
these points of order.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the outrageous manner in which this tax 
extender bill is being handled proves the Republican leadership did not 
hear the clear message that the American people sent on November 7. The 
Republicans are still concocting special interest deals behind closed 
doors. They are still pursuing their agenda to further enrich the 
wealthy few while neglecting the needs of working families. And they 
are still denying members a meaningful opportunity to debate and amend 
major legislation.
  For months, the Republicans have been holding the extension of 
important tax provisions that benefit families and businesses hostage 
to their special interest agenda. Many of these tax extenders are 
essential to the continued growth of our economy and the well-being of 
American families. Unfortunately, most of these tax incentives have 
already expired. Unless they are reinstated before the end of they 
year, millions of individuals and businesses will face a substantial 
tax increase when they pay their 2006 taxes. That would be terribly 
unfair.
  What do these tax incentives actually accomplish? The tuition tax 
credit helps more than 3\1/2\ million families each year afford a 
college education for their children. The work opportunity and welfare-
to-work tax credits encourage businesses to create jobs for 
economically disadvantaged workers. The research and development tax 
credit enables businesses to develop innovative new products and stay 
competitive. The new markets tax credit generates investment in 
underdeveloped areas across the country. If Congress does not renew 
these tax incentives now, real people who depend on the opportunities 
these tax benefits provide and the jobs they create will be hurt.
  Let me describe the impact some of these tax provisions have had on 
my own State of Massachusetts.
  Over 97,000 Massachusetts families have benefited from the tuition 
tax deduction. For some of these students, this provision makes the 
difference between being able to afford a higher education and being 
denied the opportunity to fulfill their potential. For all of them, it 
provides valuable financial assistance to cope with the rising cost of 
tuition and other school expenses.
  According to the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, over 1,100 
companies in our State--small and large--rely on the R&D tax credit. It 
helps provide the financial resources for them to become leaders in 
innovation, to create well-paying new jobs, and to compete more 
effectively in global markets.
  In Massachusetts, investors like Bank of America and Citizens Bank 
are taking advantage of new markets credits to reinvigorate our 
communities. The revenue from these tax credits are used to turn vacant 
buildings into thriving retail developments and even to rehabilitate 
endangered historic buildings. The Massachusetts Housing Investment 
corporation has used its tax credits to finance the renovation of the 
historic Colonial Theatre in Pittsfield that will become a new 
performing arts center. And in downtown Holyoke, the corporation 
invested almost $19 million in the conversion of three historic 
buildings into a new community health center providing primary care 
services to the uninsured. These tax credits translate into real 
physical improvements in our communities and improve the lives of our 
citizens.
  For nearly a year the Republican leadership has been holding the 
extension of these tax provisions hostage to their special interest 
agenda. First, the tax extenders were removed from budget 
reconciliation legislation to make room for capital gains and dividend 
tax breaks. Next, the extenders were tied to the virtual elimination of 
the inheritance tax on multimillionaires' estates. Republican leaders 
vowed that the tax extenders would never pass unless the Senate 
acquiesced in their irresponsible estate tax scheme. Fortunately, that 
did not work. Even now, after a decisive repudiation of their agenda by 
the voters in last month's election, the Republicans are still 
insisting on attaching special interest tax breaks to this ``must pass 
legislation.'' They are now demanding an expansion of tax subsidies for 
health savings accounts that only the wealthy can afford to use. These 
accounts do nothing to help struggling families that cannot afford 
health insurance. Instead, HSAs are just one more tax avoidance scheme 
for the wealthy created by this Republican Congress.
  Had the leadership allowed a straightforward extension of these tax 
provisions for working families and businesses to come to the Senate 
floor, it would have passed with near unanimity months ago. But they 
would not.
  Health savings accounts already have the most preferential treatment 
in the tax code today. Unlike most other types of accounts, 
contributions are not taxed, savings grow tax-free, and withdrawals are 
tax-free if they are used for health costs.
  Health savings accounts largely benefit the healthy and wealthy. 
According to the Government Accountability Office, those using health 
savings accounts disproportionately have high incomes. The average 
income of those with HSAs was $133,000, almost three times the income 
of the average tax filer. GAO also found that those with higher incomes 
made larger contributions to their accounts. The majority of those with 
HSAs did not withdraw any funds from them and many opened the accounts 
because they were a good way to shelter money from taxes.
  But apparently the current HSA tax break was not a big enough tax 
loophole. The Republicans want to let the wealthy shelter even more 
money under the guise of health savings accounts.
  The new provisions demonstrate that the real purpose of these 
accounts is to give the wealthy yet another vehicle to avoid paying 
taxes. They allow people to ``overfund'' their accounts--to deduct more 
from their taxes than they

[[Page S11670]]

actually pay in medical expenses. It takes away the provision under 
current law that limits HSA contributions to the annual amount of 
medical expenses the insured must pay before his health insurance 
coverage kicks in. It would actually encourage account holders to 
shelter more money than they expect to spend on medical expenses.
  Deductibles for family health coverage that can be used in 
conjunction with an HSA today range from $2,100 to $10,500. A family 
can put funds up to the threshold of their insurance coverage or 
$5,450, whichever is lower, into their account on a tax-free basis. 
This bill delinks account funding from the amount of the health 
insurance deductible, making it easier for wealthy persons to shelter 
funds beyond what they need for health care. Under the new HSA language 
inserted in this bill, someone with a $2,100 deductible health plan 
will be able to put $5,450 in their account and let it grow on a tax-
free basis.
  The bill also will allow the one-time transfer of some funds from 
individual retirement accounts into a health savings account without 
any taxes or penalty owed. This will allow wealthy individuals to shift 
funds from retirement accounts whose distributions are treated as 
ordinary income and subject to taxes into a health savings account 
whose distributions are not taxed. This will offer another new tax 
break to the wealthy.
  Health savings accounts may work well as tax shelters for the 
wealthy--and they will work even better with these new provisions--but 
they do not work for low- and moderate-income families. While these 
families may have a high-deductible health plan because it is all their 
employer offers or because it is all they can afford, they rarely have 
the means to fund a health savings account up to even the current 
limit.
  Make no mistake about it, the HSA provisions are meant to help 
wealthy individuals and the banks and investment vehicles that make 
money off their accounts. These are the people who will gain from the 
expansions of HSAs, not the uninsured.
  I also want to express some concerns I have about the trade 
provisions that are included in this package. While trade brings 
enormous benefits to our economy, we need to ensure that free trade is 
fair trade. A provision in this bill regarding the Andean countries 
severely limits the process for the free-trade agreements currently 
being negotiated and creates pressure to accept the inadequate 
agreements negotiated by the Bush administration.
  Time and again this administration only requires countries to enforce 
their own labor laws and not live up to international standards. This 
is a serious problem where laws are weak. Peru has consistently denied 
workers the right to form unions and to enforce their rights. In 
Columbia, labor advocates are blacklisted and even murdered for trying 
to exercise their democratic rights.
  Ensuring that all countries meet basic labor standards benefits our 
economy and American working families--it also strengthens the 
economies in developing nations. U.S. workers should not be undermined 
by unfair competition with countries that do not honor worker rights. 
And the working people of Columbia, Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador deserve 
to have an agreement that is thoughtful and gives serious consideration 
to the significant issues of labor and human rights.
  This is no way to conduct a trade policy. The United States can and 
must do better.
  I am also concerned that this bill will expand the District of 
Columbia voucher program, which is a program that diverts resources for 
public schools and lacks accountability for student performance. Unlike 
public schools, which are subject to the No Child Left Behind Act's 
demanding accountability system, this program has little accountability 
for improving student performance. It was authorized under very 
specific guidelines designed to create a 5-year demonstration program 
for low-income students. A provision expanding eligibility for the 
program was inserted in this bill by the House at the last minute. This 
provision detracts from the program's focus on low-income families and 
should be rejected. At a minimum, it should be proposed in a context 
open to debate on its merits.
  Because of the urgency of extending the important family and business 
tax benefits I discussed earlier, we must approve this legislation, 
despite the special interest provisions that the Republican leadership 
has attached to it. However, there will be a new Democratic Congress 
taking office next month, and the outrageous provisions added by the 
Republicans in the dark of night can be repealed in the light of day.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will oppose this measure. In addition 
to containing some questionable policy provisions, such as the 
provisions relating to drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and granting 
Vietnam permanent most-favored-nation trading status, the bill before 
us contains expensive entitlement spending and tax cuts that have not 
been fully offset. As a result, the legislation will increase the 
deficit by $40 billion over the next 5 years.
  I can count votes as well as the next person, and it is obvious that 
this measure will pass and pass by a large margin and with bipartisan 
support. That is disappointing, because while Members of my own party 
have rightly called for a return to the budget rules requiring that tax 
cuts and increased entitlement spending be offset, some are 
nevertheless pushing for the enactment of this measure without any 
serious effort to require such offsets.
  One might wonder why that is. At least two reasons come to mind. 
First, there are reasons to believe that some in my party are anxious 
to get this bill through this year because they know full well that the 
new incoming Democratic majority in the House and Senate would bristle 
at some of the trade provisions in this proposal. Those who have 
supported the trade policies of the past several years understand that 
this may be their last chance to pass questionable trade measures.
  If that is the reason, I have little to say other than thank goodness 
the 110th Congress is just around the corner. I am not sure the country 
could withstand another week of the kind of trade policy that we have 
seen promoted by both members of both parties since the early 1990s.
  It was during the session following the 1994 elections that a 
lameduck Congress passed legislation implementing the GATT trade 
agreement that established the World Trade Organization. The trade 
model that the GATT and NAFTA established has been devastating to 
thousands of communities across our country. We can only hope that the 
action taken by this lameduck Congress will mark the end of a 
disastrous period of deeply flawed trade policies. And there is some 
hope because the November elections did result in dozens of new Members 
in both Houses who reject that ruinous trade model.
  Beyond the trade issues, I have heard indirectly that some may want 
these bills to go through during the 109th Congress so that their cost 
would be assigned to the current budget rather than to a budget that 
the new Democratic majority will craft next year. I certainly hope that 
this scuttlebutt is unfounded because it reflects a cynical view of 
governing that we should reject. It certainly won't help those future 
generations of taxpayers who will be stuck with the additional debt 
that will result from this bill.
  The bill also includes a fiscally irresponsible provision that will 
result in Outer Continental Shelf drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Just 
a few months ago, the Senate approved this same misguided policy, which 
will redirect billions of dollars in Federal revenues to just four 
States. While I support efforts to provide needed assistance to those 
affected by Hurricane Katrina, we should not do so by creating a 
massive and long-term new entitlement for a handful of States.
  This measure has also been used to jam through a provision to expand 
the income eligibility of the District of Columbia school voucher 
program. I oppose school vouchers because such programs funnel taxpayer 
money away from the public schools and instead direct Federal dollars 
to private schools that do not have to adhere to the same Federal, 
State, and local accountability provisions, civil rights laws, and 
regulations that apply to public schools.
  However, as is the case of nearly any bill of this size, there are 
some good provisions in it. This bill provides relief for physicians 
who would have seen

[[Page S11671]]

a reduction in payment of 5.1 percent in the absence of legislative 
action, and it goes a step further to provide payments for physicians 
who report quality-of-care data. This is a first step toward 
implementing some kind of pay-for-performance in Medicare, and I think 
this is something that should be pursued. Quality improvement is 
certainly something that the State of Wisconsin has been a leader in, 
and I am happy to see that there are Federal incentives for quality 
improvement.
  I am especially pleased to see that this bill includes a measure that 
is very important to Wisconsin and other rural States--an extension of 
a provision enacted in the Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, that will 
keep physicians in rural States paid at a comparable level to those in 
other States. Under current Medicare law, Wisconsin physicians are paid 
less than physicians in other areas of the country, even though the 
work they do is identical. This provision helps address this inequity 
so that physicians who practice in States with large rural areas will 
not be at a disadvantage. I am pleased to see that Congress has taken 
the right steps to ensure that Medicare dollars are more fairly 
distributed throughout the State of Wisconsin and our Nation.
  These fixes for physician payment will be paid for with the Medicare 
slush fund that provided ``bonus'' payments to insurance companies. 
These payments were unnecessary and simply provided a cash flow of 
taxpayer dollars to an industry already awash in money. I have long 
advocated for elimination of this fund, and I am glad to see it used in 
a way that actually benefits the American people rather than big 
business.
  There are other good measures in the health portion of this bill. 
These include technical corrections to the so-called Deficit Reduction 
Act, an extension of a provision to help Medicare beneficiaries have 
better access to physical therapy, and a provision to help protect 
State Medicaid budgets. These are all important to the health care of 
people in our country, and are policies that I support.
  It is unfortunate that this bill does not include a measure agreed to 
in the proposed Senate bill that would have preserved children's health 
care in our country. This measure was budget neutral, a good policy, 
and the right thing to do, but the other body would not agree to this 
provision that would have prevented budget shortfalls in State 
Children's Health Insurance Programs, SCHIP, in 14 States in fiscal 
year 2007. Wisconsin is one of the States that will see a shortfall 
next year, and I will work aggressively to see that this shortfall is 
addressed before it harms children in Wisconsin. It is shameful that 
Congress will add $40 billion to our deficit for tax breaks, but we 
cannot agree to a budget-neutral measure to provide health care to 
children who would otherwise not have it.
  Despite some worthy provisions, this bill, on balance, is fiscally 
irresponsible, and I cannot support it. Perhaps the most telling gauge 
of this bill's cost is that it even violates the lax budget rules set 
forth in the last budget resolution adopted by this Congress, the 2005 
budget resolution. That is right,this bill violates the loose fiscal 
rules adopted by Congress 2 years ago.
  In some ways, this bill is a fitting end to the 109th Congress. It is 
a fair summary of the fiscal recklessness in which the White House and 
this Congress have engaged. I very much hope that when they take their 
seats in the 110th Congress, the new majority will govern in a more 
fiscally responsible manner, adopt tough, commonsense budget rules, and 
put an end to this kind of budget-busting, debt-swelling legislation.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I regret that I cannot support the tax 
extender bill before us today.
  I have long worked to ensure the passage of several of the provisions 
contained in this bill. In particular, I strongly support the extension 
of the tax provisions and the OCS drilling provisions. In fact, I have 
voted for enactment of both of these pieces of legislation a number of 
times this year. I am very saddened that these provisions are presented 
before the Senate today coupled as a part of a larger package that I 
cannot favor.
  I want to make it clear to my constituents and to American families, 
taxpayers and businesses that I recognize the immense importance of the 
tax extender provisions and will do all that I can to ensure that they 
are enacted as soon as possible.
  Likewise, I am a cosponsor of Senator Domenici's original Senate bill 
regarding OCS drilling and I look forward to the day these provisions 
become law. This bill is a first step in providing domestic energy that 
will bring down prices while decreasing our dependence on Middle 
Eastern oil. I will continue to work toward expanded access in the Gulf 
of Mexico and with any other states who would like to pursue offshore 
drilling.
  Despite my strong support for many provisions of this bill, I must 
oppose it because I have a number of fundamental concerns about it.
  First and foremost, I object vehemently to the inclusion of 
legislation granting permanent normal trade relations status, PNTR, to 
Vietnam in this bill. The decision of whether to grant PNTR status to 
Vietnam is a very important decision that will have consequences well 
into the future and it deserves to be debated on its own merits by both 
the House and Senate. It is inappropriate for legislation of this 
magnitude to be attached to other relatively noncontroversial 
legislation in an attempt to quiet any objections and ensure its 
enactment.
  I have spent a lot of time contemplating whether I should support the 
granting of PNTR status to Vietnam. I serve on the Senate Finance 
Committee and I was disturbed by a number of issues that were raised 
during committee consideration of this issue. I voted ``Present'' when 
this legislation was approved by the committee because I wanted to have 
more time to examine these issues more in depth. What I have found has 
disturbed me and made it impossible for me to support such a measure at 
this time.
  I believe that access to free markets should depend on access to 
other freedoms such as political freedom and human rights. Despite 
increased diplomatic ties between the United States and Vietnam over 
the past 15 years, we must not forget that Vietnam is still a Communist 
country. A country made up of only one political party that continues 
to deny its citizens the basic freedoms of speech, press, and religion.
  Now some of my colleagues would argue that we should grant permanent 
normal trade relations, PNTR, to Vietnam because the State Department 
recently removed them from their list of ``Countries of Concern'' for 
severe violations of religious freedom. Vietnam has been on this list 
for the last ten years but was removed this year--just one day before 
the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation--APEC--Leaders Meeting in 
Vietnam. I believe that they were removed more for diplomatic reasons 
than anything else. Evidence presented to me by the International 
Commission on Religious Freedom shows that Vietnam has done very little 
to warrant such a removal.
  Vietnam's record on human rights and religious freedom is abysmal--
absolutely abysmal. Hundreds of political and religious prisoners 
remain behind bars in a country that lacks any sort of a real judicial 
system. Arrests and detentions of religious leaders continue daily. 
They are often arrested for no other reason than the practice of their 
religion or for possession of nongovernment-mandated religious 
materials such as Bibles.
  Forced renunciations of faith also continue on a daily basis. While 
this is prohibited by Vietnamese law there is no criminal penalty for 
carrying out this practice--so it continues. In this practice, 
religious followers are detained, threatened, and beaten in order to 
force them to recant their faith or stop their religious activities. I 
ask my colleagues to imagine what it would be like to have your faith 
literally beaten out of you? I find such a practice perverse.
  Aside from beatings and renunciations of faith, churches are often 
destroyed, property is seized and people are continually placed under 
house arrest. Religious materials and charitable activities are also 
severely restricted by the government. They even retain the right to 
appoint all Catholic bishops and seminarians; a right that is reserved 
solely for the Vatican. In the past year, Vietnam has done very little 
to help strengthen its relations with the Vatican and still refuses to

[[Page S11672]]

allow them to build a seminary in their country.
  Vietnam has acknowledged the fact that these abuses occur. Last year 
they even went so far as to enter into agreement with the State 
Department to try to end such abuses, but unfortunately little if any 
real progress was made especially in the rural areas of the Central and 
Northwest Highlands. While there was a great deal of talk of reform, 
there was little action. This is at a time when Vietnam is seeking to 
more fully participate in the global economy and international 
community. I find that unacceptable.
  I fear that in granting Vietnam permanent normal trade relations, 
PNTR, we would take away a key incentive for them to implement any type 
of real reform.
  Vietnam is on its best behavior while it is under the international 
spotlight, but what will happen after this trade deal is signed? I fear 
that the consequences of this would be too great.
  In addition to my opposition to the inclusion of the Vietnam trade 
provisions in this legislation, this package also includes a health 
component that primarily deals with the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. 
I am extremely disappointed that the negotiators on this bill decided 
to take money from the Medicare stabilization fund to pay for other 
spending in the bill.
  When Congress created the new Medicare drug benefit in 2003, it was 
very important to me and other Members that all Medicare beneficiaries 
have access to Medicare managed-care plans. The stabilization fund was 
created to provide incentives for managed care plans to remain or enter 
the Medicare Advantage program, thereby ensuring that beneficiaries in 
rural areas of this country--including many parts of Kentucky--had 
access to Medicare managed care plans.
  Some people argue that the stabilization fund is not necessary. Quite 
honestly, however, it is too early to tell if this fund is necessary. 
The Medicare Advantage program has only been up and running for 1 year. 
At this point, we don't know what will happen to the Medicare Advantage 
program 5 or 10 years down the road, and we shouldn't be spending the 
money from the stabilization fund before we do.
  This fund was supposed to ensure that all Medicare beneficiaries have 
equal access to managed care plans, and it is irresponsible for 
Congress to view this account as a piggy bank to fund other spending.
  Finally, I would be remiss if I failed to mention the budgetary 
impact of this bill. As Chairman Gregg of the Senate Budget Committee 
has already pointed out, this bill is a budget buster. It will break 
the budget by at least $17 billion. The bulk of the cost of this bill 
is not found in the tax extenders--they represent less than a third of 
the cost. The cost of this bill is in the extraneous items that were 
added to the bill--many, I suspect, in order to ensure its passage 
today.
  I am sorry to see that some of my colleagues are more interested in 
quickly going home rather than working to draft legislation that falls 
within our budget and is more than the Christmas tree we have here. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and to continue to work 
to find another solution on how to pass some of the good provisions in 
this package.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield the floor, and I yield back the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired. The question is on agreeing 
to the motion to waive the Budget Act. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. 
Hagel), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Arizona 
(Mr. McCain), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) and 
the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. 
Jeffords), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), and the 
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 67, nays 21, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 277 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wyden

                                NAYS--21

     Alexander
     Bingaman
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Conrad
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Graham
     Gregg
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Sununu
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Biden
     Brownback
     Dodd
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Jeffords
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Specter
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 67, the nays are 
21.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.


                             CLOTURE MOTION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     concur in the House amendment to H.R. 6111: to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the Tax Court 
     may review claims for equitable innocent spouse relief and to 
     suspend the running on the period of limitations while such 
     claims are pending.
         Bill Frist, Johnny Isakson, Richard Burr, Jon Kyl, R.F. 
           Bennett, Christopher Bond, John Cornyn, Rick Santorum, 
           Mike Crapo, Jim Talent, Pat Roberts, Chuck Grassley, 
           Pete Domenici, Jim DeMint, John Thune, Kay Bailey 
           Hutchison, George Allen.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
6111, an act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that 
the Tax Court may review claims for equitable innocent spouse relief 
and to suspend the running on the period of limitations while such 
claims are pending, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. 
Hagel), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Arizona 
(Mr. McCain), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) and 
the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. 
Jeffords), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), and the 
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 78, nays 10, as follows:

[[Page S11673]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 278 Leg.]

                                YEAS--78

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                                NAYS--10

     Bingaman
     Bunning
     Burns
     Coburn
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Graham
     Gregg
     Sununu

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Biden
     Brownback
     Dodd
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Jeffords
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Specter
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 78, the nays 10. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to concur 
with an amendment is withdrawn. The question is on the motion to concur 
with the amendment of the House.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. 
Hagel), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Arizona 
(Mr. McCain), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) and 
the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. 
Jeffords), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), and the 
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 79, nays 9, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 279 Leg.]

                                YEAS--79

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wyden

                                NAYS--9

     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Coburn
     Feingold
     Graham
     Gregg
     Sununu
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Biden
     Brownback
     Dodd
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Jeffords
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Specter
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate concurs in the 
House amendment to the title.
  Mr. FRIST. I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion 
on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                        TRIBUTE TO RAMONA LESSEN

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I say hello to her as I come to the office 
every morning. And I say goodbye to her after I have closed the Senate 
each evening. The ``her'' is Ramona Lessen, my gatekeeper, my jailer, a 
distinguished member of my staff.
  Twelve years ago, I was a newly elected Senator, a brandnew Senator 
who got lost trying to find his way to this place called the Russell 
Building. My chief of staff was just as green, just as new as me. We 
were all learning the ropes of the Senate together. But one member of 
our staff at least was not new. She took us under her experienced wing, 
and we took off on what has been a magical flight.
  That person is Ramona Lessen, my executive assistant, who became very 
quickly the geographic and operational commander and controller of the 
Frist office.
  Little did I realize when I first brought Ramona onboard that she 
would sit right outside--right outside--my office door, for not the 
next year or 2 years or 3 years or 4 years, but for 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 
11, 12 years. As many of my colleagues know, I am a pilot, and I have 
flown a long time. I love to fly. And nothing is more comforting when 
you are flying an airplane close to a thunderstorm, and you are there 
alone, but you are talking to an air traffic control tower, and the 
voice on the other end is somebody who is reassuring, somebody who is 
calm, somebody who gets the big picture, who knows what is at stake and 
ultimately can vector you right around that thunderstorm.
  And that is Ramona. Ramona, who is the expert in terms of scheduling, 
in terms of that coordination, who keeps the flights landing safely and 
keeps those flights landing on time. She prioritizes literally hundreds 
of meeting requests with flexibility and efficiency. And when someone 
puts a last-minute kink in the schedule, which as we all know occurs 
all too often, she works hard to correct it. She handles it with 
perfect aplomb.
  When other staff members are out traveling with me or at committee 
meetings or monitoring the floor, Ramona is back in that office holding 
down the fort. She is always working behind the scenes to make our 
lives run as smoothly as possible. It gets hectic. Everybody here knows 
that. Everybody wants something all the time. And I know there are many 
days when she is--and these are her words--``hanging on by her 
fingernails.'' But despite the intense pressures of her job, the stress 
of juggling that busy schedule and responding to untold invitations and 
meeting requests, not to mention working for a demanding--not so 
demanding, but a demanding--boss, Ramona not only maintains her cool, 
but she keeps the office upbeat and literally fun.
  Her talents take many forms. She is a professional pianist, 
professional at least in my eyes. You will find her playing at our 
Christmas parties, at the Bible study groups we have here, at her 
church, and even in the studios in Music City USA, Nashville, TN.
  She is a formidable athlete. She runs a little slow but a formidable 
athlete. She led the Frist staff softball team to winning seasons--
championship seasons really; but we will say winning seasons--for 4 
consecutive years, pitching with a changeup that baffled even the most 
experienced batters.
  She does have an infectious laugh, that endearing cackle that we all 
know and have come to love. She treats the staff to doughnuts on many a 
Friday. She keeps me posted on the whereabouts of former staff members, 
Members who worked with us 12 years ago and 10 years ago and 8 years 
ago. And if you go into her office back in the majority leader's 
office, she has a baby board with candid photos of our staff and their 
children.
  She frequently carpools in with her beloved husband Joe, who is 
always at her side, who has also spent many a late night out front 
waiting for her, as we finished business. And most people know we 
finish fairly late.
  She gave us daily updates when her son Robert was proudly serving in 
Iraq, representing freedom, and their son

[[Page S11674]]

Jonathan was proudly serving in Afghanistan--a family proudly serving 
this country.
  Ramona is the glue of the Senate Frist staff family, and she is an 
extension of my own family. When we first moved to Washington, she 
reached out, she helped Karyn and me and our three boys, Bryan, 
Jonathan, and Harrison settle into a new city, a new city we had spent 
no time in at all. She has watched my three sons grow from three young 
boys to three young men.
  Ramona, you have kept my life organized for 12 years. You have 
faithfully served your country in the Senate for 27 years--27\1/2\ 
years. And you have done a tremendous, tremendous job.
  Thank you, Ramona, for sticking with us all these years. Thank you, 
and we love you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

                          ____________________