January 6, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S53 

SEC. 806. APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—For the purpose of carrying out this title, there are authorized to 

be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2010 

through 2014. 

(b) ALLOCATIONS.—Of the amounts appropriated under subsection (a) for a fiscal 

year— 

(1) not more than 7 percent may be used for 

the administrative expenses of the Secretary 

in carrying out this title for that fiscal year; 

and 

(2) not more than 10 percent may be used 

for the national evaluation under section 

804(b). 

TITLE IX—PREVENTION THROUGH 

AFFORDABLE ACCESS 

SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE. 

This title may be cited as the ‘‘Prevention 

Through Affordable Access Act’’. 

SEC. 902. RESTORING AND PROTECTING ACCESS 

TO DISCOUNT DRUG PRICES FOR 

UNIVERSITY-BASED AND SAFETYNET CLINICS. 

(a) RESTORING NOMINAL PRICING.—Section 

1927(c)(1)(D)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 

U.S.C. 1396r–8(c)(1)(D)(i)) is amended— 

(1) by redesignating subclause (IV) as subclause (VI); and 

(2) by inserting after subclause (III) the following new subclauses: 

‘‘(IV) An entity that is operated by a 

health center of an institution of higher education, the primary purpose of which is to 

provide health services to students of that 

institution. 

‘‘(V) An entity that is a public or private 

nonprofit entity that provides a service or 

services described under section 1001(a) of 

the Public Health Service Act.’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by this section shall be effective as of 

the date of the enactment of this Act. 

By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, 

Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. ENSIGN, 

Mr. CORNYN, and Mr. MARTINEZ): 

S. 35. A bill to provide a permanent 

deduction for State and local general 

sales taxes; to the Committee on Finance. 

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I 

am pleased to introduce a bill to permanently correct an injustice in the 

tax code that has harmed citizens in 

many States of this great Nation. 

State and local governments have 

various alternatives for raising revenue. Some levy income taxes, some 

use sales taxes, and others use a combination of the two. The citizens who 

pay State and local income taxes have 

been able to offset some of their federal 

income taxes by receiving a deduction 

for those State and local income taxes. 

Before 1986, taxpayers also had the 

ability to deduct their sales taxes. 

The philosophy behind these deductions is simple: people should not have 

to pay taxes on their taxes. The money 

that people must give to one level of 

government should not also be taxed 

by another level of government. 

Unfortunately, citizens of some 

States were treated differently after 

1986 when the deduction for State and 

local sales taxes was eliminated. This 

discriminated against those living in 

States, such as my home State of 

Texas, with no income taxes. It is important to remember the lack of an income tax does not mean citizens in 

these States do not pay State taxes; 

revenues are simply collected differently. 

It is unfair to give citizens from some 

States a deduction for the revenue they 

provide their State and local governments, while not doing the same for 

citizens from other States. Federal tax 

law should not treat people differently 

on the basis of State residence and differing tax collection methods, and it 

should not provide an incentive for 

States to establish income taxes over 

sales taxes. 

This discrepancy has a significant 

impact on Texas. According to the 

Texas Comptroller, extending the deduction would save Texans a projected 

$1.2 billion a year, or an average of $520 

per filer claiming the deduction. The 

Texas Comptroller also estimates continuing the deduction is associated 

with 15,700 to 25,700 Texas jobs and $1.1 

billion to $1.4 billion in gross State 

product. 

Recognizing the inequity in the tax 

code, Congress reinstated the sales tax 

deduction in 2004 and authorized it for 

2 years. In 2006 Congress extended the 

sales tax deduction for an additional 2 

years. Last year, Congress extended 

the deduction for 2 more years. Unfortunately, the deduction is only in effect through 2009, and we must act to 

prevent the inequity from returning. 

The legislation I am offering today 

will fix this problem for good by making the State and local sales tax deduction permanent. This will permanently 

end the discrimination suffered by my 

fellow Texans and citizens of other 

States who do not have the option of 

an income tax deduction. 

This legislation is about reestablishing equity to the tax code and defending the important principle of 

eliminating taxes on taxes. I hope my 

fellow Senators will support this effort 

and pass this legislation. 

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

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 35 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF DEDUCTION OF STATE AND LOCAL GENERAL SALES TAXES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (I) of section 164(b)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

1986, as amended by section 201 of the Tax 

Extenders and Minimum Tax Relief Act of 

2008, is amended by striking ‘‘, and before 

January 1, 2010’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment 

made by this section shall apply to taxable 

years beginning after December 31, 2009. 

By Mr. MCCAIN (for himself and 

Mr. ENSIGN): 

S. 36. A bill to repeat the perimeter 

rule for Ronald Reagan Washington 

National Airport, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation. 

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I am 

pleased to be joined by Senator ENSIGN

in introducing the Abolishing Aviation 

Barriers Act of 2009. This bill would remove the arbitrary restrictions that 

prevent Americans from having an 

array of options for non-stop air travel 

between airports in Western states and 

LaGuardia International Airport and 

Ronald Reagan Washington National 

Airport. 

LaGuardia restricts the departure or 

arrival of non-stop flights to or from 

airports that are farther then 1,500 

miles from LaGuardia. Washington National has a similar restriction for nonstop flights to or from airports 1,250 

miles from Washington National. These 

restrictions are commonly referred to 

as the ‘‘perimeter rule.’’ This bill 

would abolish these archaic limitations 

that reduce consumers’ options for convenient flights and competitive fares. 

The original purpose of the perimeter 

rule was to promote LaGuardia and 

Washington National as airports for 

business travelers flying to and from 

East Coast and Midwest cities and to 

promote traffic to other airports by diverting long haul flights to Newark 

and Kennedy airports in the New York 

area and the Dulles airport in the 

Washington area. However, over the 

years, Congress has granted numerous 

exceptions to the perimeter rule because the air traveling public is eager 

for options. Today, exceptions are 

made for nonstop flights between 

LaGuardia and Denver and between 

Washington National and Denver, Las 

Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Salt 

Lake City and Seattle. Rather then 

continuing to take a piecemeal approach to promoting consumer choice, 

I urge Congress to take this opportunity once and for all to do away with 

this outdated rule. 

I continue to believe that Americans 

should have access to air travel at the 

lowest possible cost and with the most 

convenience for their schedule. Therefore, I have always advocated for the 

removal of any artificial barrier that 

prevents free market competition. In 

2004, I co-sponsored legislation to repeal the Wright Amendment which prohibited flights from Dallas’ Love Field 

airport to 43 states. This year, I am 

proud to once again join with my colleagues to eliminate another unnecessary restraint through the Abolishing 

Aviation Barriers Act of 2009. 

A 1999 study by the Transportation 

Research Board, the most recent available, stated that perimeter rules ‘‘no 

longer serve their original purpose and 

have produced too many adverse side 

effects, including barriers to competition . . . The rules arbitrarily prevent 

some airlines from extending their networks to these airports; they discourage competition among the airports in 

the region and among the airlines that 

use these airports; and they are subject 

to chronic attempts by special interest 

groups to obtain exemptions.’’ That 

same year, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, stated that the 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
S54 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 6, 2009 

‘‘practical effect’’ of the perimeter rule 

‘‘has been to limit entry’’ of other carriers and found that airfares at 

LaGuardia and Washington National 

are approximately 50 percent higher on 

average than fares at similar airports 

unconstrained by the perimeter rule. 

Such an anticompetitive rule should 

not remain in effect, particularly 

where its anticompetitive impact has 

long been recognized. 

For this reason, I will continue the 

struggle to try to remove the perimeter rule and other anti-competitive 

restrictions that increase consumer 

costs and decrease convenience for no 

apparent benefit. 

By Mr. MCCAIN: 

S. 37. A bill to amend the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently 

extend the research credit; to the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, today I 

introduce the Economic Growth 

Through Innovation Act of 2009. This 

bill would make permanent the current 

research and development tax credit. 

Otherwise, this tax credit will expire 

on December 31, 2009. 

A permanent credit would provide an 

incentive to innovate, and remove uncertainty now hanging over businesses 

as they make research and development investment decisions for 2010 and 

beyond. The research and development 

tax credit was first established in 1981 

and has been extended and revised repeatedly since then. Failure to make 

the tax credit permanent has led to reduced investment in research, which 

has led to fewer jobs being created in 

the United States. Tax policies have a 

powerful influence on business investment and hiring decisions, and that is 

why I have chosen to introduce this 

bill on the first day of the 111th Congress. Additionally, both Presidentelect Obama and I were in full agreement during the campaign that making 

permanent the research and development tax credit is critical to spurring 

investment in developing technologies. 

In the 1980s, the U.S. was a leader 

among nations for providing the most 

generous tax treatment of research and 

development. By 2004, the most recent 

study, the United States had fallen to 

17th, which explains why the U.S. is no 

longer considered by many to be the 

world leader in innovation and technology. A permanent, meaningful research and development tax credit will 

ensure that businesses keep funding research and development, which may 

lead to numerous new discoveries in 

the U.S. such as fuel-efficient vehicles, 

cancer treatment or the development 

of clean energy. 

Studies have shown that on average, 

companies invest $94 in research and 

development for every $6 the Federal 

Government invests in the tax credit. 

While I understand that some economists have estimated this tax credit 

may cost many billions of dollars in 

tax revenue to the Federal government, I believe it is essential to spurring an economic recovery. 

Companies of all sizes, in a wide 

range of industries, have taken advantage of the research and development 

tax credit during its existence. According to a recent study by Ernst & 

Young, 17,700 businesses claimed $6.6 

billion research and development tax 

credits on their tax returns in 2005, the 

most recent year available. Almost a 

quarter of these businesses were small 

businesses with $1 million of assets or 

less, and almost half were businesses 

with assets of $1–$5 million, which is 

the lifeblood of the U.S. economy. 

Firms in the manufacturing, information and services sectors claimed the 

majority of the credit, and the states 

with the highest number of companies 

reporting research and development activity include those States that have 

been hit the hardest by the depressed 

economy such as Michigan, Pennsylvania and California. 

Congress has endorsed the credit by 

extending it 13 times since enactment, 

and several times the credit has been 

reinstated retroactively. Yet, it has 

never been made permanent, creating a 

less certain investment atmosphere. 

With so many Republicans and Democrats in agreement that this tax credit 

must be made permanent, including 

President-elect Obama, I hope this bill 

will be given swift consideration and 

signed into law during the first few 

months of 2009 to increase our nation’s 

ability to innovate, create jobs and improve our sagging economy. 

By Mr. MCCAIN (for himself and 

Mr. DORGAN): 

S. 38. A bill to establish a United 

States Boxing Commission to administer the Act, and for other purposes; to 

the Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation. 

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, today I 

am pleased to be joined by Senator 

DORGAN in introducing the Professional 

Boxing Amendments Act of 2009. This 

legislation is virtually identical to a 

measure reported by the Commerce 

Committee during the first executive 

session of the 110th Congress, after 

being approved unanimously by the 

Senate in 2005. Simply put, this bill 

would better protect professional boxing from the fraud, corruption, and ineffective regulation that have plagued 

the sport for far too many years, and 

that have devastated physically and financially many of our Nation’s professional boxers. I remain committed to 

moving the Professional Boxing 

Amendments Act through the Senate 

and I trust that my colleagues will 

once again vote favorably on this important legislation. 

Since 1996, Congress has made efforts 

to improve the sport of professional 

boxing—and for very good reason. With 

rare exception, professional boxers 

come from the lowest rung on our economic ladder. Often they are the least 

educated and most exploited athletes 

in our nation. The Professional Boxing 

Safety Act of 1996 and the Muhammad 

Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000 established uniform health and safety standards for professional boxers, as well as 

basic protections for boxers against the 

sometimes coercive, exploitative, and 

unethical business practices of promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations. But further action is needed. 

The Professional Boxing Amendments Act would strengthen existing 

Federal boxing law by improving the 

basic health and safety standards for 

professional boxers, establishing a centralized medical registry to be used by 

local commissions to protect boxers, 

reducing the arbitrary practices of 

sanctioning organizations, and enhancing the uniformity and basic standards 

for professional boxing contracts. Most 

importantly, this legislation would establish a Federal regulatory entity to 

oversee professional boxing and set 

basic uniform standards for certain aspects of the sport. 

Current law has improved to some 

extent the state of professional boxing. 

However, I remain concerned, as do 

many others, that the sport remains at 

risk. In 2003, the Government Accountability Office spent more than six 

months studying ten of the country’s 

busiest state and tribal boxing commissions. Government auditors found that 

many State and tribal boxing commissions still do not comply with Federal 

boxing law, and that there is a troubling lack of enforcement by both Federal and State officials. 

Ineffective and inconsistent oversight of professional boxing has contributed to the continuing scandals, 

controversies, unethical practices, and 

unnecessary deaths in the sport. These 

problems have led many in professional 

boxing to conclude that the only solution is an effective and accountable 

Federal boxing commission. The Professional Boxing Amendments Act 

would create such an entity. 

Professional boxing remains the only 

major sport in the United States that 

does not have a strong, centralized association, league, or other regulatory 

body to establish and enforce uniform 

rules and practices. Because a powerful 

few benefit greatly from the current 

system of patchwork compliance and 

enforcement of Federal boxing law, a 

national self-regulating organization— 

though preferable to Federal government oversight is not a realistic option. 

This bill would establish the United 

States Boxing Commission ‘‘USBC’’ or 

Commission. The Commission would be 

responsible for protecting the health, 

safety, and general interests of professional boxers. The USBC would also be 

responsible for ensuring uniformity, 

fairness, and integrity in professional 

boxing. More specifically, the Commission would administer Federal boxing 

law and coordinate with other Federal 

regulatory agencies to ensure that this 

law is enforced; oversee all professional 

boxing matches in the United States; 

and work with the boxing industry and 

local commissions to improve the safety, integrity, and professionalism of 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE