Prescription Drug Coverage Stewardship Act of 2005

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Development Act of 2005. In doing so, I would like to thank Senator Robert Bennett and Senator Wayne Allard for cosponsoring this legislation.

It could not be any more apparent to Americans when we pay to fill up our cars that this country is in need of a strong, comprehensive energy strategy. Our citizens recognize that there is a shortage of petroleum, and that that shortage is driving up prices.

American consumers have increased their demand for oil by 12 percent in the last decade, but oil production has grown by less than one half of one percent. Is it any wonder we rely on foreign countries for more than half our oil needs? We import 56 percent of our oil today, and it's projected to be 68 percent within 20 years.

On a larger scale, global demand for oil is growing at an unprecedented pace--about two and half million barrels per day in 2004 alone. However, while global oil production is increasing, the discovery of new oil reserves is falling dramatically. Moreover, trends indicate that the global thirst for petroleum will continue to grow, especially in Asia.

Last month, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan stated, ``Markets for oil and natural gas have been subject to a degree of strain over the past year not experienced for a generation. Increased demand and lagging additions to productive capacity have combined to absorb a significant amount of the slack in energy markets that was essential in containing energy prices between 1985 and 2000.''

We are quickly heading into a global energy crunch, and our lack of sufficient oil supply at home will give us little or no buffer against it. Increasing our domestic oil reserve is imperative both from an economic and a national security perspective.

I am pleased to report to my colleagues today that a solution is available.

It is a little known fact that the largest hydrocarbon resource in the world rests within the borders of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. I know it may be hard to believe, but energy experts agree that there is more recoverable oil in these three States than there is in all the Middle East. In fact, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that recoverable oil shale in the western United States exceeds one trillion barrels and is the richest and most geographically concentrated oil shale and tar sands resource in the world.

This gigantic resource of oil shale and tar sands is well known by geologists and energy experts, but it has not been counted among our Nation's oil reserve because it is not yet being developed commercially. Companies have been waiting for the Federal Government to recognize publicly the existence of this resource as a potential reserve and to allow industry access to it.

This bill would give them that chance.

Some might ask why we have not yet developed these resources if doing so could have such a profound economic potential?

I understand why we have been so hesitant to develop this resource in the past. During the 1970s, we saw a very large and expensive effort begin in western Colorado to develop oil shale there. When the price of oil dropped dramatically, though, the market for oil shale went bust and the region suffered an economic disaster.

We should never forget that experience.

Much has changed since the 1970s, and it would be senseless to continue to ignore the huge potential of this resource. I think there has been a mind set within the government and the local communities resulting from the Colorado boom and bust experience that developing this resource would be risky. The fact is, developing this energy resource is no more risky than producing oil offshore or in the Arctic. It is certainly less risky than continuing to rely on oil from the Middle East or from other foreign competitors.

We need to remember that our past failure in this area was not necessarily a failure of technology, but rather an inability to sustain this technology economically because of a very large slump in gas prices. Today's economics and advances in technology combine to provide the right scenario to begin the development of the world's largest untapped oil resource.

Skeptics might ask how we know that the price of oil won't plummet, causing the problems of the 1970s all over again? The world is now reaching peak oil production of conventional oil. With the tremendous growth in India and Asia, and the accompanying need for oil, experts predict there will be little economic incentive for prices to drop. This is a new scenario for the world, and it forces us to shift our focus to unconventional resources.

We have already seen this shift in focus by the government of Alberta, Canada. Alberta recognized the potential of its own tar sands deposits and set forth a policy to promote their development. As a result, Canada has increased its oil reserves by more than a factor of 10, going from a reserve of about 14 billion barrels to its current reserve of 176 billion barrels in only a few years. And just think we are sitting on one trillion barrels, more than five times what Canada has.

I think it's outrageous that Utah imports about one-fourth of its oil from Canadian tar sands, even though we have a very large resource of those very same tar sands in our own State sitting undeveloped. The government of Alberta, which owns the resource, has moved forward in leaps and bounds, while the United States has yet to take even a baby step toward developing our untapped resource.

Our proposed legislation looks to the Alberta model to help the United States move toward greater energy independence. The Oil Shale and Tar Sands Development Act represents a necessary shift by our government from an almost complete reliance on conventional sources of oil to our vast unconventional resources, such as tar sands and oil shale.

In drafting this legislation, we have been mindful of the environment and of States' water rights. We live in a different world than when these resources were first developed. Unlike 30 years ago, we now have the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, the

National Environmental Policy Act, and the Mining Reclamation Act. Also, new technologies make the effort much cleaner and require less water than in the past. Industry understands that any water it needs will have to be acquired according to State law and according to existing water rights.

Let me talk, for a moment, about the specific provisions in our bill. S. 1111 would establish an Office of Strategic Fuels tasked with, among other things, the development of a five-year plan to determine the safest and steadiest route to developing oil shale and tar sands. The bill would also establish a mineral leasing program in the Department of the Interior to provide access to this resource.

Recognizing the tremendous national interest in this resource, our legislation provides a number of programs to encourage oil shale and tar sands development, including Federal royalty relief, Federal cost shares for demonstration projects, advanced procurement agreements by the military, and tax relief through the expensing of new equipment and technologies related to oil shale and tar sands development.

The size of our nation's energy challenge is enormous, but in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming we have an answer that more than meets the challenge. This bill moves us down that path. I urge my colleagues to join us in our effort to help the United States open the door new frontier for domestic energy.

Mr. President, I am joined today by Senator Stevens in introducing the Clean Sports Act of 2005. The chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, Congressman Davis, and the ranking member of that committee, Congressman Waxman, are introducing a companion bill today in the House.

The purpose of this bill is to protect the integrity of professional sports and, more importantly, the health and safety of our Nation's youth, who, for better or for worse, see professional athletes as role models. The legislation would achieve that goal by establishing minimum standards for the testing of steroids and other performance-enhancing substances by major professional sports leagues. By adhering to--and hopefully exceeding--these minimum standards, the Nation's major professional sports leagues would send a strong signal to the public that performance-enhancing drugs have no legitimate role in American sports.

This bill would prohibit our country's major professional sports leagues--the National Football League, Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, and the National Hockey League--from operating if they do not meet the minimum testing requirements set forth therein. Those standards would be comprised of five key components: the independence of the entity or entities that perform the leagues' drug tests; testing for a comprehensive list of doping substances and methods; a strong system of unannounced testing; significant penalties that discourage the use of performance-enhancing drugs; and a fair and effective adjudication process for athletes accused of doping. These elements are crucial components of any credible performance-enhancing drug testing policy.

More specifically, the bill would require all major professional sports leagues to have an independent third party administer their performance-enhancing drug tests. The legislation would further require that samples provided by athletes be tested by laboratories approved by the United States Anti-Doping Agency--USADA--and for substances banned by USADA. In addition, the bill would require not fewer than three unannounced tests during a league's season of play, and at least two unannounced tests during the off season. Under this legislation, if a player were to test positive for a banned performance-enhancing substance, that player would be suspended for 2 years for the first violation and banned for life for a second violation. Finally, if any player were to test positive, the professional sports league would be obligated to ensure that the player would have substantial due process rights including the opportunity for a hearing and right to counsel.

To ensure that the major professional sports leagues meet the highest standards of performance-enhancing drug testing, the bill would require each professional sports league to consult with USADA in developing its drug testing standards and procedures, its protocols for tests in the off season, and its athlete adjudication program. For 5 years, USADA has served as the official antidoping agency for Olympic sports in the United States. In that role, USADA has shown a tremendous dedication to eliminating doping in sports through research, education, testing, and adjudication efforts. The expertise that it has developed over the past half-decade would serve this country's professional sports leagues well.

A violation of this legislation would be treated as a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Federal Trade Commission would have the ability to either obtain an injunction against the league that is in violation of the bill or seek penalties of up to $1 million per violation. Any enforcement mechanism that is not as strong as this would simply not be effective to ensure that these multi-billion-dollar businesses adhere to the minimum standards set forth in the legislation.

Finally, the bill would give the Office of National Drug Control Policy--ONDCP--the ability to add other professional sports leagues as well as certain college sports if the ONDCP were to determine that such additions would prevent the use of performance-enhancing substances by high school, college, or professional athletes. The bill would also require the United States Boxing Commission, upon its establishment, to promulgate steroids testing standards consistent with those contained in the bill.

The need for reforming the drug testing policies of professional sports is clear. However, I introduce this legislation reluctantly. Over a year ago, I stated publicly that the failure of professional sports--and in particular Major League Baseball--to commit to addressing the issue of doping straight on and immediately would motivate Congress to search for legislative remedies. Despite my clear warning and the significant attention that Congress has given to this stain on professional sports, baseball, and other professional leagues have refused to do the right thing.

By introducing this bill, I am once again asking the leagues to shore up the integrity of professional sports. I am asking the leagues to realize that what is at stake here is not the sanctity of collective bargaining agreements, but rather the health and safety of America's children. Like it or not, our Nation's kids look to professional athletes as role models and take cues from their actions, both good and bad.

I remain hopeful that professional sports will reform their drug testing policies on their own--a modest proposal in the eyes of reasonable people. However, the introduction of this bill demonstrates the continued seriousness with which Congress views this issue. It should be seen as a renewed incentive for the leagues to clean up their sports on their own without Government interference.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Grassley, and our other colleagues, in introducing legislation to make the Section 529 enhancements enacted in 2001 permanent.

In 2001, it was the Senate, especially my good friend Chairman Grassley, that insisted on including education savings in the tax bill. I am proud of that fact. And I am proud that the Senate is again taking the lead to make these important provisions permanent.

Higher education is critical to our children's future and our Nation's economy. As a parent, or grandparent, you know that providing your children with a college education means they are likely to earn substantially more than if they only have a high school degree. One study estimated a million dollars more in today's dollars.

College is a good investment, but a very expensive one. The cost of tuition is rising every year. Over the past ten years, expenses at public universities have increased nearly 40 percent. The U.S. Department of Education says the average cost of a four-year education is currently $34,000 and almost $90,000 for private colleges.

In 1996, Congress created 529 plans to help families plan for this expense. Since their inception, 529 plans have helped families' college savings grow faster by not taxing investment income while it is accumulating in the account. In 2001, we saw a need to do more to help families deal with skyrocketing costs, so we allowed tax-free distributions from the account, as long as the money goes for its intended purpose--post-secondary education expenses. This income exclusion will expire after 2010 if we don't do something about it.

There are a lot of provisions that will expire in 2010--so why focus on this one provision today? Because saving for college doesn't happen in five or six years. We want families to save today for college expenses fifteen to twenty years from now. Without this legislation, we are asking families to make critical investment decisions without the promise of today's tax benefits. This is not a good way to encourage savings. Making this tax benefit permanent will allow families to plan and finance their children's education beyond 2010.

Thousands of young people back home have 529 plan accounts. By the end of 2004, Montana families had over $128 million set aside through the Montana Family Education Savings Program. Across the country there is about $68 billion invested in over 7 million accounts. The average account balance is just over $9,000. Not enough to finance a college education, but an important start.

One of the great things about 529 plans is that grandparents can save for the future of their grandchildren. That is what Arlene Hannawalt did--she saved through a 529 plan for her granddaughter Nicole's education. Nicole dropped out of high school, but she is getting her GED. Later this year, with help from her 529 account, Nicole will be going to the University of Montana--Helena College of Technology to study accounting.

Nicole's father is in the Army National Guard, serving in Iraq. Our prayers are with him. I'm sure Nicole's family is very pleased that she will soon be a college student.

Tax-favored treatment for college savings is good policy, but it is not free. I assure my colleagues that we will be looking for appropriate offsets to cover the cost of this bill.

Education is one of my top priorities. And saving for education should be one of a family's top priorities. I encourage my colleagues to join in making the tax status of 529 benefits permanent to help millions of American families plan for their children's future.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will help increase the amount of food donations going to American Indians and Alaska Natives nationwide. I am pleased to have Mr. Johnson join me in introducing this important legislation.

Despite reports from the Census Bureau that show stable income levels for many Americans, the poverty rate for the 4.4 million American Indians and Alaska Natives living throughout the United States remains nearly three times that of non-Hispanic whites. Not only do Natives face greater challenges in securing basic household necessities, but in securing food as well.

According to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report released in late 2004, nearly 36 million Americans face challenges in getting enough food to eat. This includes nearly 13 million children. Of these statistics, Natives constitute a disproportionate number due to the higher poverty rate among this group.

And yet, charitable organizations that provide hunger relief are unable to meet the basic needs of Natives due to an oversight in the Federal tax code. Section 170(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code allows corporations to take an enhanced tax deduction for donations of food inventory; however, the food must be distributed to 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, such as food banks. Nonprofit organizations cannot then transfer such donations to tribes. Although many donations to tribes are tax deductible under section 7871 of the Internal Revenue Code, tribes are not among the organizations listed under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. To clarify, section 170(e)(3) does not allow tribes to be eligible recipients of corporate food donations to nonprofit organizations since they are not listed under section 501(c)(3) as an eligible entity.

With this legislation, we intend to make a simple correction to the tax code that clearly indicates that tribes are eligible recipients of food donated under section 170(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. This correction is long overdue and would remedy an egregious inequity in the Federal tax code that affects Natives nationwide.

Please allow me to provide a few examples of how this legislation could foster positive change. In Alaska, approximately half of the food donated to the Food Bank of Alaska from corporations could go to tribes throughout Alaska. Much of this food would go to villages that are only accessible by air or water. In South Dakota, roughly 30 percent of the food the Community Food Banks of South Dakota distributes would go to reservations. In North Dakota, the amount of food donated to the Great Plains Food Bank could double if this legislation were enacted. The Montana Food Bank Network projects that food donations could increase by 16 percent. A food bank based in Albuquerque, NM estimates that their food donations could triple in the first year alone.

It is imperative that we address this important issue expeditiously. The health and well-being of low income American Indians and Alaska Natives across the Nation is at stake.

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

Mr. President, over the past three decades, prescription medicines have assumed a central and critical role in treating health care conditions. Every year, researchers make new discoveries that help patients cope with illnesses and improve their quality of life. Ensuring access to prescription drugs--to treatments that can help people maintain their health and avoid costly hospitalizations, for example--is a fundamental responsibility of our Federal health programs. We would not have worked as hard as we did to establish the first-ever Medicare prescription drug benefit if we did not believe this to be true. At the same time, we have a tremendous responsibility to be good stewards of taxpayers' dollars. I, for one, take that responsibility very seriously.

In 2004, our nation spent $1.8 trillion on health care. Medicare spending accounted for 17 percent of that amount. In 2005, Medicaid spending is expected to reach $321 billion. The Federal government offers me and other Federal employees health coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). The Department of Defense has TRICARE for military personnel, and the Veterans' Administration provides an important source of health care access to those who proudly served our country. Year after year, the costs of these and other Federal health care programs continue to rise. Year after year, we are forced to make difficult decisions to find ways to save money under these programs with the goal of sustaining them well into the future.

In contrast to those decisions, the bill that I am introducing today was not difficult for me at all. By eliminating all Federal payments for certain ``lifestyle'' drugs, the legislation restores the fundamental concept of stewardship to prescription drug coverage under Federal programs. It is a pretty simple piece of legislation--no payment for drugs prescribed for sexual or erectile dysfunction under any Federal program, period. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that Medicare and Medicaid alone will spend $2 billion on these drugs between 2006 and 2015. In my opinion, those dollars could be spent more wisely.

When we crafted the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, our bipartisan agreement sought to strike the most reasonable balance for Medicare beneficiaries and hard working taxpayers. We wanted to make sure that beneficiaries had access to life-saving and life-improving medicines. Now some certainly may argue that these ``lifestyle'' drugs can improve your life. I

appreciate that view. However, we live in a world of limited resources, and in that world of limited resources coverage of these ``lifestyle'' drugs under Medicare--or any other Federal program, in my opinion--is inconsistent with that goal of balance. I am pleased to join with Senators Lott, Santorum, and Ensign in working to rectify that situation today and urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important legislation.