Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the extraordinary career of Senator Jim Jeffords.

For the past 32 years, Jim Jeffords has served the citizens of Vermont and the American people with integrity, intellectual honesty, and diligence. When faced with the choice between political convenience or protecting the interests of his constituents, Jim Jeffords always stood for Vermont and the concerns of hard-working Americans. When others decided to do what was popular in Washington or among the chattering classes, Jim remained true to his values. He has been a model of principled leadership, often ahead of his time.

Long before protecting our environment and precious natural resources occupied America's consciousness, Jim was leading on these issues. Working across party lines throughout his career, including as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Jim Jeffords urged the President to strengthen antipollution measures, investigated the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, and promoted increased fuel efficiency. During his time in the U.S. Senate he introduced the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, the High-Performance Green Buildings Act, and the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Investment Act.

Jim Jeffords has never lost sight of his constituents and their needs. He loyally stood by farmers in Vermont and all over the Nation when he fought President Bush's dairy tax, extended the Milk Income Loss Contracts--MILC--program, and supported the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act.

Jim Jeffords has also committed his career to improving education, which he has treated as one of the great callings of our time. Speaking at a Rally for Education in 2002, Jim Jeffords said of education funding that ``it is not an option, it is a necessity, for our children, for our schools and for the future of our great Nation.'' Jim Jeffords championed the Head Start Program, increased funding for elementary, secondary, and higher education, and sponsored the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act. He has also provided unwavering support to American children with disabilities that face a unique set of challenges in navigating our education system. Even as a freshman Congressman some 30 years ago, Jim Jeffords managed to marshal his colleagues in order to pass the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I have had the opportunity to work closely with Senator Jeffords and his capable staff. His office and his standards of professionalism inspire great respect.

On a personal level, I continue to admire a public servant that has so consistently followed his conscience. Time magazine recognized Jim Jeffords as the ``Person of the Week'' for his ``revolutionary'' party switch in 2001. I do not believe that Jim necessarily set out to start a revolution; rather he invoked what might be considered a revolutionary idea to some in Washington: government ought to serve the concerns and interests of ordinary Americans instead of catering to fringe groups or election year antics. In hindsight, most will hail Jim Jeffords' principled decision to switch parties, though I know the decision was a difficult one for him and strained his relationship with many in this body. But Jim Jeffords did what he thought was right, and I applaud his courage and his example of leadership.

So I thank Senator Jeffords not only for his lifetime of service and accomplishments but for having raised the bar for all of us.

I wish Jim Jeffords and his family many happy years ahead.

If I could, I do not think I will need more than 15 minutes. It may be a little more than 10 minutes.

Mr. President, thank you very much. And I thank my dear friend from Utah.

Mr. President, I would like to address the habeas corpus

amendment that is on the floor and that we just heard a lengthy debate about between Senator Specter and Senator Warner.

A few years ago, I gave a speech in Boston that people talk about from time to time. In that speech, I spoke about why I love this country, why I love America, and what I believe sets this country apart from so many other nations in so many areas. I said:

That is the true genius of America--a faith in simple

dreams, an insistence on small miracles; that we can tuck in

our children at night and know that they are fed and clothed

and safe from harm; that we can say what we think, write what

we think, without hearing a sudden knock on the door. . . .

Without hearing a sudden knock on the door. I bring this up because what is at stake in this bill, and in the amendment that is currently being debated, is the right, in some sense, for people who hear that knock on the door and are placed in detention because the Government suspects them of terrorist activity to effectively challenge their detention by our Government.

Now, under the existing rules of the Detainee Treatment Act, court review of anyone's detention is severely restricted. Fortunately, the Supreme Court in Hamdan ensured that some meaningful review would take place. But in the absence of Senator Specter's amendment that is currently pending, we will essentially be going back to the same situation as if the Supreme Court had never ruled in Hamdan, a situation in which detainees effectively have no access to anything other than the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, or the CSRT.

Now, I think it is important for all of us to understand exactly the procedures that are currently provided for under the CSRT. I have actually read a few of the transcripts of proceedings under the CSRT. And I can tell you that oftentimes they provide detainees no meaningful recourse if the Government has the wrong guy.

Essentially, reading these transcripts, they proceed as follows: The Government says: You are a member of the Taliban. And the detainee will say: No, I'm not. And then the Government will not ask for proof from the detainee that he is not. There is no evidence that the detainee can offer to rebut the Government's charge.

The Government then moves on and says: And on such and such a date, you perpetrated such and such terrorist crime. And the detainee says: No, I didn't. You have the wrong guy. But again, he has no capacity to place into evidence anything that would rebut the Government's charge. And there is no effort to find out whether or not what he is saying is true.

And it proceeds like that until effectively the Government says, OK, that is the end of the tribunal, and he goes back to detention. Even if there is evidence that he was not involved in any terrorist activity, he may not have any mechanism to introduce that evidence into the hearing.

Now, the vast majority of the folks in Guantanamo, I suspect, are there for a reason. There are a lot of dangerous people. Particularly dangerous are people like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Ironically, those are the guys who are going to get real military procedures because they are going to be charged by the Government. But detainees who have not committed war crimes--or where the Government's case is not strong--may not have any recourse whatsoever.

The bottom line is this: Current procedures under the CSRT are such that a perfectly innocent individual could be held and could not rebut the Government's case and has no way of proving his innocence.

I would like somebody in this Chamber, somebody in this Government, to tell me why this is necessary. I do not want to hear that this is a new world and we face a new kind of enemy. I know that. I know that every time I think about my two little girls and worry for their safety--when I wonder if I really can tuck them in at night and know that they are safe from harm. I have as big of a stake as anybody on the other side of the aisle and anybody in this administration in capturing terrorists and incapacitating them. I would gladly take up arms myself against any terrorist threat to make sure my family is protected.

But as a parent, I can also imagine the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence.

This is not just an entirely fictional scenario, by the way. We have already had reports by the CIA and various generals over the last few years saying that many of the detainees at Guantanamo should not have been there. As one U.S. commander of Guantanamo told the Wall Street Journal:

Sometimes, we just didn't get the right folks.

We all know about the recent case of the Canadian man who was suspected of terrorist connections, detained in New York, sent to Syria--through a rendition agreement--tortured, only to find out later it was all a case of mistaken identity and poor information.

In this war, where terrorists can plot undetected from within our borders, it is absolutely vital that our law enforcement agencies are able to detain and interrogate whoever they believe to be a suspect, and so it is understandable that mistakes will be made and identities will be confused. I don't blame the Government for that. This is an extraordinarily difficult war we are prosecuting against terrorists. There are going to be situations in which we cast too wide a net and capture the wrong person.

But what is avoidable is refusing to ever allow our legal system to correct these mistakes. By giving suspects a chance--even one chance-- to challenge the terms of their detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the Government has detained the right person for the right suspicions, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit.

Let me respond to a couple of points that have been made on the other side. You will hear opponents of this amendment say it will give all kinds of rights to terrorist masterminds, such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. But that is not true. The irony of the underlying bill as it is written is that someone like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is going to get basically a full military trial, with all of the bells and whistles. He will have counsel, he will be able to present evidence, and he will be able to rebut the Government's case. The feeling is that he is guilty of a war crime and to do otherwise might violate some of our agreements under the Geneva Conventions. I think that is good, that we are going to provide him with some procedure and process. I think we will convict him, and I think he will be brought to justice. I think justice will be carried out in his case.

But that won't be true for the detainees who are never charged with a terrorist crime, who have not committed a war crime. Under this bill, people who may have been simply at the wrong place at the wrong time-- and there may be just a few--will never get a chance to appeal their detention. So, essentially, the weaker the Government's case is against you, the fewer rights you have. Senator Specter's amendment would fix that, while still ensuring that terrorists like Mohammed are swiftly brought to justice.

You are also going to hear a lot about how lawyers are going to file all kinds of frivolous lawsuits on behalf of detainees if habeas corpus is in place. This is a cynical argument because I think we could get overwhelming support in this Chamber right now for a measure that would restrict habeas to a one-shot appeal that would be limited solely to whether someone was legally detained or not. I am not interested in allowing folks at Guantanamo to complain about whether their cell is too small or whether the food they get is sufficiently edible or to their tastes. That is not what this is about. We can craft a habeas bill that says the only question before the court is whether there is sufficient evidence to find that this person is truly an unlawful enemy combatant and belongs in this detention center. We can restrict it to that. And although I have seen some of those amendments floating around, those were not amendments that were admitted during this debate. It is a problem that is easily addressed. It is not a reason for us to wholesale eliminate habeas corpus.

Finally, you will hear some Senators argue that if habeas is allowed, it renders the CSRT process irrelevant because the courts will embark on de

novo review, meaning they will completely retry these cases, take new evidence. So whatever findings were made in the CSRT are not really relevant because the court is essentially going to start all over again.

I actually think some of these Senators are right on this point. I believe we could actually set up a system in which a military tribunal is sufficient to make a determination as to whether someone is an enemy combatant and would not require the sort of traditional habeas corpus that is called for as a consequence of this amendment, where the court's role is simply to see whether proper procedures were met. The problem is that the way the CSRT is currently designed is so insufficient that we can anticipate the Supreme Court overturning this underlying bill, once again, in the absence of habeas corpus review.

I have had conversations with some of the sponsors of the underlying bill who say they agree that we have to beef up the CSRT procedures. Well, if we are going to revisit the CSRT procedures to make them stronger and make sure they comport with basic due process, why not leave habeas corpus in place until we have actually fixed it up to our satisfaction? Why rush through it 2 days before we are supposed to adjourn? Because some on the other side of the aisle want to go campaign on the issue of who is tougher on terrorism and national security.

Since 9/11, Americans have been asked to give up certain conveniences and civil liberties--long waits in airport security lines, random questioning because of a foreign-sounding last name--so that the Government can defeat terrorism wherever it may exist. It is a tough balance to strike. I think we have to acknowledge that whoever was in power right now, whoever was in the White House, whichever party was in control, that we would have to do some balancing between civil liberties and our need for security and to get tough on those who would do us harm.

Most of us have been willing to make some sacrifices because we know that, in the end, it helps to make us safer. But restricting somebody's right to challenge their imprisonment indefinitely is not going to make us safer. In fact, recent evidence shows it is probably making us less safe.

In Sunday's New York Times, it was reported that previous drafts of the recently released National Intelligence Estimate, a report of 16 different Government intelligence agencies, describe:

. . . actions by the United States Government that were

determined to have stoked the jihad movement, like the

indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. . . .

This is not just unhelpful in our fight against terror, it is unnecessary. We don't need to imprison innocent people to win this war. For people who are guilty, we have the procedures in place to lock them up. That is who we are as a people. We do things right, and we do things fair.

Two days ago, every Member of this body received a letter, signed by 35 U.S. diplomats, many of whom served under Republican Presidents. They urged us to reconsider eliminating the rights of habeas corpus from this bill, saying:

To deny habeas corpus to our detainees can be seen as a

prescription for how the captured members of our own

military, diplomatic, and NGO personnel stationed abroad may

be treated. . . . The Congress has every duty to insure their

protection, and to avoid anything which will be taken as a

justification, even by the most disturbed minds, that

arbitrary arrest is the acceptable norm of the day in the

relations between nations, and that judicial inquiry is an

antique, trivial and dispensable luxury.

The world is watching what we do today in America. They will know what we do here today, and they will treat all of us accordingly in the future--our soldiers, our diplomats, our journalists, anybody who travels beyond these borders. I hope we remember this as we go forward. I sincerely hope we can protect what has been called the ``great writ''--a writ that has been in place in the Anglo-American legal system for over 700 years.

Mr. President, this should not be a difficult vote. I hope we pass this amendment because I think it is the only way to make sure this underlying bill preserves all the great traditions of our legal system and our way of life.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Secure Fence Act. The bill before us will certainly do some good. It will authorize some badly needed funding for better fences and better security along our borders, and that should help stem some of the tide of illegal immigration in this country. But if we think that putting up a few more miles of fence is by any means the whole answer to our immigration problems, then I believe we are seriously kidding ourselves.

This bill, from my perspective, is an election-year, political solution to a real policy challenge that goes far beyond November. It is great for sound bites and ad campaigns, but as an answer to the problem of illegal immigration, it is unfinished at best.

Yes, we need tougher border security and stronger enforcement measures. Yes, we need more resources for Customs and Border agents and more detention beds. Democrats and Republicans in both the House and the Senate agree on these points. But immigrants sneaking in through unguarded holes in our border are only part of the problem.

As a host of former Bush immigration officials and Members of Congress said in today's Washington Post, we must ``acknowledge that as much as half of the illegal-immigration problem is driven by the hiring of people who enter the United States through official border points but use fraudulent documents or overstay visas.''

This serves as a reminder that for the last 15 years, our immigration strategy has consisted of throwing more money at the border. We have tripled the size of the Border Patrol and we strengthened fences. But even as investments in border security grew, the size of the undocumented population grew as well. So we need to approach the immigration challenge from a different perspective.

This is why for months Democrats and Republicans have been working together to pass a comprehensive immigration bill out of this Congress because we know that in addition to greater border security, we also need greater sanctions on employers who illegally hire people in this country. We

need to make it easier for those employers to identify who is legally eligible to work and who is not. And we need to figure out how we plan to deal with the 12 million undocumented immigrants who are already here, many of whom have woven themselves into the fabric of our communities, many of whom have children who are U.S. citizens, many of whom employers depend on. Until we do, no one should be able to look a voter in the face and honestly tell them that we have solved our immigration problem.

A model for compromise on this issue is in the Senate bill that was passed out of this Chamber. In the new electronic employment verification system section of that bill that I helped write with Senator Grassley and Senator Kennedy, we agreed to postpone the new guest worker program until 2 years of funding is made available for improved workplace enforcement. We could extend that framework and work together to first ensure the money is in place to strengthen enforcement at the border and then allow the new guest worker program to kick in. We can do all of that in one bill, but we are not.

So while this bill will probably pass, it should be seen only as one step in the much greater challenge of reforming our immigration system. Meeting that challenge will require passing measures to discourage people from overstaying their visas in the country and to help employers check the legal status of the workers applying for jobs.

It seems it was just yesterday that we were having celebratory press conferences and the President and the Senate leadership were promising to pass a bill that would secure our borders and take a tough but realistic approach to the undocumented immigrants who are already here.

Today that promise looks empty and that cooperation seems like a thing of the past. But we owe it to the American people to finish the job we are starting today. And we owe it to all those immigrants who have come to this country with nothing more than a willingness to work and a hope for a better life. Like so many of our own parents and grandparents, they have shown the courage to leave their homes and seek out a new destiny of their own making. The least we can do is show the courage to help them make that destiny a reality in a way that is safe, legal, and achievable. So when we actually start debating this bill, I hope the majority leader will permit consideration of a wide range of amendments.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today marks a victory for government transparency and a victory for democratic accountability. By passing the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, the House of Representatives and the Senate have brought a little much- needed sunlight to the world of government spending.

This bill requires the Office of Management and Budget to ensure that a free, searchable Web site is available to Americans to access information about Federal grants, contracts, loans, and other financial assistance. The Web site will make public important oversight information including the name and location of an entity receiving an award, a description of the purpose of the funding, the amount of funding, the type of transaction, the primary location of performance under the award, the funding agency, and any other relevant information specified by the Office of Management and Budget. Existing Federal databases, such as the Federal Procurement Data System, FPDS, the Federal Assistance Award Data System, FAADS, and Grants.gov, contain other public information that may also be made available through the new Web site.

Current law requires that certain information related to the use of competitive or noncompetitive procedures in procurements be included in FPDS. Executive agencies must provide competition information for each procurement transaction, including the extent to which the procurement was subject to competitive procedures, the type of solicitation procedure used, whether the procurement was awarded using a socioeconomic program set-aside, and, when applicable, the reason for a non-competitive procurement. This information is available to the public through FPDS.

It is my expectation that the Office of Management and Budget will ensure that all relevant information on the use of competitive or noncompetitive procedures will be included in the information made available through the Web site. Since the collection of this information is already mandated and the information is made publicly available, its inclusion on the searchable, user-friendly Web site should not cause any additional burden or complexity.

Mr. President, I would like to ask my friend from Oklahoma and the author of this legislation, who has tirelessly fought to improve government accountability, if he shares my expectation that the new Web site will include information on the use of competitive procedures.

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his leadership on this issue. I am grateful for our partnership to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government services. I am confident that our efforts to reduce the use of noncompetitive procedures will save taxpayer money and improve the quality of contracted goods and services.

I would also like to inquire of the distinguished chair and ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee who were instrumental in bringing this legislation through committee and ensuring its passage by the Senate.

I would ask Madam Chairman, if it is her expectation that information on the use of competitive or noncompetitive procedures for the financial transactions reported on the Web site created through the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 will be available on the Web site, so that citizens will have straightforward access to comprehensive information on federal awards?

I thank the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The American people are well served by her leadership and the diligence of her excellent staff. Let me further note that all of us are well served by the productive working relationship that the chairman shares with the ranking member. The bipartisan nature of this bill is a testament not only to the broad support for the idea itself but also to the cooperative manner in which the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee conducts its business.

So let me ask the committee's ranking member and my good friend from the State of Connecticut, who has long been a champion of good government and transparency, whether he shares our understanding that this new Web site will include information on the competitive or noncompetitive procedures used in government contracting for goods and services.

I thank the Senator from Connecticut. It has been my privilege to work with him on this issue. Transparency is the first step to holding government accountable. We can't reduce waste, fraud, and abuse or improve fairness and efficiency without knowing how, where, and why Federal money is being spent. And we cannot ensure that Americans are getting the best quality and the best prices on government contracts without being able to evaluate the types of procedures used to procure goods and services. Whether you believe the government ought to spend more money or spend less, we can all agree that the government ought to spend every penny efficiently and transparently. If the procedures by which the government spends money, or those expenditures themselves, can't withstand public scrutiny, then the taxpayers' money shouldn't be spent. The American people deserve no less.

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4972, as modified, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that would supplement the steps we are taking through this port security bill and increase our preparedness for a potential terrorist attack. My amendment is fairly modest. It requires FEMA to mandate that each State have a plan for the evacuation of individuals with special needs during times of emergency. Such plans would include an explanation of how these people--particularly low-income individuals and families, the elderly, the disabled, and those who cannot speak English--will be evacuated out of the emergency area and how the States will provide shelter, food, and water to these people once evacuated.

This amendment was included in S. 1725 and passed out of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in September of 2005.

This amendment obviously grows out of the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, which devastated the gulf coast a little more than a year ago. One of the most striking aspects of the devastation caused by Katrina is the majority of stranded victims who were our society's most vulnerable members. As I indicated, after the tragedy, I think the government officials who called for the evacuation of the gulf coast-- and this is true not just for Federal folks but also State and local officials--seemed to assume that all residents could pack up their families into an SUV, fill up the gas tank, drive out of town, and find a hotel in which to ride out the storm. As we learned, that was not the case. Many people were forced to find shelter in the Superdome or convention center because they did not own cars. They didn't have the money for a tank of gas or a hotel room. They

might not have wanted to leave their jobs or their belongings. Maybe they were in nursing homes or maybe they misunderstood the warnings because they didn't speak English. Whatever the reasons, thousands of people were not evacuated, and we saw the horrific results of that mistake.

This failure to evacuate so many of the most desperate citizens in the gulf coast could easily happen again if we are faced with another natural disaster such as Katrina or a terrorist attack that struck one of our cities. That is why I have come to the floor to offer this amendment. Our charge as public servants is to worry about all people. I was troubled that our emergency response and disaster plans were inadequate for large segments of the gulf coast. I have serious doubts at this point whether the plans in other regions are adequate as well. Perfect evacuation planning is obviously not possible, but greater advanced preparation can ensure the most vulnerable are not simply forgotten or ignored.

Even the Department of Homeland Security recognizes the urgent need for action, and the Department's nationwide plan review published this June found:

Significant weaknesses in evacuation planning are an area

of profound concern.

Congress can and should act to address this concern by passing this amendment. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment which, as I said, passed the Homeland Security Committee on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Salazar be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Chairman Collins for supporting this amendment. I very much appreciate her remarks.

Mr. President, I rise today to remember the horrifying terrorist attacks that took away so many innocent lives 5 years ago.

As a rule, tragedies of the magnitude we saw on 9/11 do not have silver linings. On that day, we were left only with an aching sense of loss, a sadness that seemed endless, and a bitter rage toward those who had brought chaos to our doorstep.

And yet it is undeniable that amidst one of the worst moments in our history, an ordinary goodness emerged in America. You could see it in the rescue workers and firefighters who rushed toward the rubble, in the scores of young people who signed up to serve their country, and in the quiet candlelight vigils held by millions of people for those they had never met and never would.

In our politics, too, there was a brief moment where it seemed as though the crass partisanship of the nineties would give way to a unity of purpose among Republicans and Democrats that would refocus our efforts on attacking the terrorists, not each other. We saw this in the immediate support given to President Bush, in the near unanimous vote to go after the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan, and in the formation of an independent, bipartisan commission that would tell us how and where to strengthen our homeland security.

Five years after 9/11, the days of that unity are long gone. In the last two elections, the Republican Party has used national security as a political weapon to attack and beat opponents, while the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission float further and further from the front pages. Now, as we approach another election season, the party in power has announced again that it intends to ``run on'' the issue of national security, with some going so far as to say that the terrorists are just waiting for Democrats to take over so that they can attack.

I realize that in this day and age, it is naive to think that politics would stop at the water's edge. But I refuse to believe that we cannot find the will or the resources to implement a series of recommendations that an independent panel of Democrats and Republicans agree would keep our country safer from terrorist attack.

In a report card delivered last year by the 9/11 Commission, the country's security efforts received mediocre to failing grades--17 Ds and Fs in 41 areas of homeland security.

To this day, our first responders still do not have the communications equipment they need to coordinate a rescue in the event of an attack. We still inspect only 5 percent of the 9,000,000 containers that enter this country every year. We are still spending only 2 percent of what we need to secure our railroads and subways, and not nearly enough on baggage and cargo screening at our airports. We still have only

10,000 border patrol agents to guard 8,000 miles of land borders, and only 1 agent to guard every 3 miles of border with Canada. And we are leaving some of America's most vulnerable targets--including chemical plants with toxic substances that could kill millions--with the most minimal security.

If on the day after 9/11 you had told anyone in America that these gaps in our security would still exist 5 years later, they might have thought you were crazy. And yet since then attempt after attempt to correct these problems--from efforts to fully fund rail, transit, and port security to the legislation I have introduced to protect chemical plants--have been rebuffed by the administration and the Republican- controlled Congress.

This cannot go on. National security cannot be something we only discuss on 9/11 or when terrorists try to blow up planes over the Atlantic or when it suits our political interests on election day. It is an every day challenge, and it will take Americans of every political persuasion to meet it.

Like most Americans, the effect of September 11 felt profoundly personal to me. It wasn't just the magnitude of the destruction that affected me or the memories of the 5 years I had spent in New York, but the intimacy of imagining those ordinary acts which 9/11's victims must have performed in the hours before they were killed, the daily routines that constitute life in our modern world--boarding a plane, grabbing coffee and the morning paper at a newsstand, making small talk on the elevator.

For so long, these acts represented the concrete expression of our belief that if we just exercised, wore seatbelts, and avoided needless risks, our safety was assured, our families protected. Certainly, the prospect of mass violence on American soil seemed remote.

Five years later, we know that world is gone--that we must better understand our fragility and better secure ourselves from those who have the will and the way to do us harm. This means a change in priorities, yes, but it also means a change in our politics--a willingness to put aside the petty, if just for a moment, so that we may rise together to meet one of the greatest challenges of our time. History has shown this will not be easy, but if the ordinary goodness that emerged from that rubble 5 years ago is any indication, I still believe it is imminently possible.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues from Georgia in congratulating the Columbus Northern Little League team for winning the Little League World Series.

I would also like to congratulate a team from my home State, the Lemont Little League team from Lemont, IL. On August 23, these young athletes competed in the U.S. semifinals of the Little League World Series. It was the

culmination of a long journey. After earning the honor of representing Illinois, the Lemont team traveled to the Great Lakes Regional Tournament in Indianapolis. Early in the regional, they lost games to both Indiana and Kentucky. But they turned things around, beating both of those teams to advance to World Series play in Williamsport, PA.

Once again, the team was challenged, losing in its first game. But again, they did not quit, and won their next two games to advance to the U.S. semifinals. The semifinal game against Beaverton, OR, was hard fought. Lemont got on the board first with two runs in the third, but going into the bottom of the sixth and final inning, they were down 4- 2. Exhibiting the strength and spirit that got them this far, they rallied, scored and got the tying run to third, but still lost 4-3.

The young men of Lemont Little League had a terrific run, and I congratulate them for going this far into the tournament. Baseball is a wonderful sport and as the summer winds down, I am sure the boys are already looking to next year. I wish them continued success.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, which passed the Senate last week.

This is an important bill that will bring badly needed transparency to Federal spending. The bill creates a user-friendly website to search all Government contracts, grants, earmarks, and loans, opening up Federal financial transactions to public scrutiny. By helping to lift the veil of secrecy in Washington, this website will help make us all better legislators. It will help make reporters better journalists. And it will help make all Americans more informed voters and more active citizens.

I am heartened to see that Government transparency can be a bipartisan issue. This bill has been cosponsored by more than 40 of our colleagues and has the support of more than 100 outside groups from all parts of the political spectrum. It has been endorsed by dozens of editorial boards across the country from the Wall Street Journal, to the Chicago Sun-Times and The Oklahoman. Most people I speak to in Illinois or here in Washington or anywhere else wonder why a public website of all Federal spending does not already exist. To them, this is just common sense.

Whether you believe the Government ought to spend more money or spend less, you should certainly be able to agree that the Government ought to spend every penny efficiently and transparently. Transparency is the first step to holding Government accountable for its actions and is a prerequisite to oversight and financial control. We can't reduce waste, fraud, and abuse without knowing how, where, and why Federal money is flowing out the door. This bill will provide that transparency, and not just to Members of Congress. Anybody with access to the Internet will be able to see how Federal funds are being spent. If Government spending can't withstand public scrutiny, then the money shouldn't be spent. The American people deserve no less.

I want to express my appreciation for the hard work that went into getting S. 2590 passed. I would like to thank the majority leader and minority leader, as well as the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, for their assistance in moving this important legislation forward.

I would also like to thank the organizations that helped create a grassroots movement in support of Government transparency and in support of this bill. Without the hard work of OMB Watch, the Project on Government Oversight, and Citizens Against Government Waste, to name just a few supporters, this bill would not have been considered and passed so quickly.

And most importantly, I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Coburn, and his outstanding staff for their diligence and dedication. Since Senator Coburn and I first met during freshman orientation, we have developed a close personal bond that has translated into a close working relationship to bring more transparency and accountability into the way that Government spends taxpayer money. I have been impressed by the commitment and tenacity with which he stands up for his principles and beliefs, and it is these qualities that enabled this bill to get passed.

The House of Representatives is expected to vote on this bill later this week, and I am confident that our bipartisan and bicameral collaboration will quickly become law. It is not often that two Senators from different parties are able to bridge the partisan divide in this town and get something accomplished. But the American people demand greater transparency and accountability, and it is our honor and privilege--indeed, it is our duty--to provide the tools to help make that possible.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleagues from New Jersey and Oklahoma. It has been a pleasure to work with them on important legislation to improve Federal financial transparency and accountability. The American people have a right to know how Federal resources are being used. Congress and the President should make it as easy as possible for taxpayers to see how well we are doing our jobs as stewards of Federal revenues and administrators of Federal spending. All of us should have adequate tools to monitor and evaluate how departments and agencies are performing their important functions. The Web site our legislation calls for will be an important tool in reducing wasteful earmarks and unjustified pork barrel spending. Transparency of spending is an important step in improving accountability and performance.

I agree with Senators Lautenberg and Coburn that we also need transparency in Federal tax policy. The same way taxpayers should be able to see which companies and organizations receive Federal grants or contracts or other forms of financial assistance, Americans should be able to see which companies and organizations are receiving narrowly targeted tax credits and deductions. A tax break for one taxpayer often means higher taxes for everybody else. It is our duty to make sure that tax breaks that only benefit a few taxpayers at the expense of everybody else are legitimate and appropriate. I have no doubt that greater transparency of targeted tax benefits can help us simplify and improve the fairness of the Federal Tax Code.

I look forward to the opportunity to develop bipartisan legislation to address this issue, and I thank my colleagues for their wonderful leadership.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the latest effort to reduce the estate tax for a small fraction of the wealthiest Americans at a cost to all Americans of more than $750 billion. This time our friends in the House of Representatives realized that the Senate would reject such a reckless policy. So rather than scaling back Paris Hilton's tax cut to a reasonable level or suggesting a fair way to pay for their tax cuts, they have done something else. They have decided to hold an increase in the minimum wage hostage to a fiscally destructive cut in the estate tax.

This is cynical politics at its worst. This is government by gimmick. Combining the estate tax with a minimum wage increase and temporary tax cut extenders is not an example of finding common ground or moving to a reasonable compromise; this is an example of political coercion. And the American people are wise to it.

This is simply an attempt to dare members of my party to vote against an increase in the minimum wage which has been one of our long-time priorities.

But why should we have to agree to nearly $800 billion of additional Federal debt--debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay back in higher taxes down the road--in order to get a long-overdue wage increase for those struggling to make ends meet that would have no negative effect on the Federal budget?

Why should we have to agree to an average tax break of $1.4 million for several thousand wealthy estates in order to add about $1,200 on average to the incomes of several million working families?

Why should we have to agree to a permanent reduction in the estate tax for billionaires when all the tax benefits for students, small businesses, teachers, and neighborhoods will expire under this bill in a year or two?

This bill is not the outcome of a robust policy debate or bipartisan compromise in the public interest. It's not the result of honest tradeoffs. No. This bill is a cynical ploy to say ``gotcha'' to the Democrats. At best it's politically clever, but in no way is it smart.

Increasing the minimum wage would make a significant difference in the lives of this country's most vulnerable workers. The Federal minimum wage has not been adjusted since 1997 and the proposed increase really just keeps workers from falling further behind in their struggle to keep up with inflation. It is shameful that the President and Congress have not acted sooner to raise the minimum wage.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that. So they have tied the minimum wage vote to the estate tax. They have tied the fate of several million working families and their ability to buy food and gas and school supplies to the ability of wealthy heirs to inherit even larger estates tax free.

I am confident that the American people will see through this. By 2009, the estate tax will already be repealed for more than 99 percent of all Americans. For the few estates that are wealthy enough to have to pay the estate tax, they can make unlimited charitable deductions, they can pass along at least $7 million to their heirs tax free, they can take more than a dozen years to pay-off the taxes owed, and the effective tax rate will be fair and reasonable. We could extend that status forever, and members of both parties could claim victory and move on to addressing America's real priorities.

Instead we are here once more, debating tax cuts and adding to America's debt.

Now let's be honest. This is not about saving small businesses and family farms. We can reform the estate tax to protect the few farms that are affected. We can set it at a level where no small business is ever affected. We can even repeal the estate tax altogether for the 99.5 percent of families with less than $7 million in taxable assets that means families with assets almost 100 times greater than the average American household's net worth. That would be compromise. That would be sensible.

Democrats have offered to reform the estate tax in these ways time and time again. But over and over, our offers have been refused, which can only mean that the party in power is really interested in an unprecedented giveaway to the wealthiest of the wealthy.

And don't think for a minute that there is any plan to pay for this. Every proposal to enforce pay-as-you-go rules for fiscal responsibility has been rebuffed. This tax cut will have to be paid for in the years ahead by higher taxes on working families and reduced public services in all of our communities. This tax cut will have to be paid for by higher interest rates on homes and student loans. And this tax cut will have to be paid for by greater dependence on foreign countries.

It's amazing to me how little the Congress has actually accomplished this year and how much time we have wasted on the estate tax. You would think the richest among us were the most oppressed. And even now we are being blocked from dealing with bipartisan pension legislation, not to mention dealing with the costs of healthcare, our real homeland security challenges, or the threat of global warming.

So if the Republicans want to bring up the estate tax yet again to use it as an election issue later, I say go for it. Because there may be no better illustration of how we differ in priorities than this irresponsible vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is not a perfect bill. No 900-page bill could be. But it will push companies to stay true to the promises of retirement security that they have made to their employees. We have seen too many people hurt at companies that have gone through bankruptcy and dumped their pensions on the PBGC. We have also seen companies like Enron that misled their workers into putting all their retirement savings into employer stock. This bill takes steps to reduce the incentives and capacity for firms to take either of those courses of action.

But as I said, the bill is not perfect. Among the areas that could have used additional work is the disparate treatment among competitors contained in the airline relief portion of the bill.

The Senate-passed bill contained comparable relief for all airlines in an effort to keep from distorting the marketplace against or in favor of any one or two airlines. That was the correct approach. The House-passed bill treats different airlines differently and will distort the market in a way that is unnecessary and unfair to the 10,000 American Airlines workers and retirees in Illinois. Both as a matter of retirement policy and aviation policy, this bill should not favor one airline over another, and I join my colleagues who are calling for parity or near parity in treatment.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2006. This bill will expand and accelerate scientific advancement in the field of genomics, which is already beginning to change the paradigm of medical practice as we know it and will have profound implications for health and health care in this Nation.

Almost 150 years ago, Gregor Mendel made history when he established the Laws of Heredity, which detailed his early knowledge about the fundamentals of inheritance. As has happened so many times throughout history, Mr. Mendel's fellow scientists didn't fully understand, support or necessarily agree with his hypotheses on genes, specifically how they are transmitted from one generation to the next, and how they help to define who we are. But he persevered--growing, observing and experimenting on 10,000 pea plants for almost a decade--and we know now that his ideas were right.

I mention Mr. Mendel not just because he was an early pioneer in the field of genetics, and is considered by many to be the father of genetics, but also because he had vision, intellectual curiosity, courage to think independently and question the status quo, and of course tenacity, all of which ultimately opened the door to a scientific revolution.

Since that time, our knowledge about genetics has dramatically increased. We have unlocked many of the mysteries about DNA and RNA, their structure and function, and how their code is translated into the proteins that make up the tissues and organs of the human body. Researchers have also made discoveries about DNA replication, and genetic recombination and regulation, just to name a few, and have developed the necessary technologies to do all of this work.

This knowledge isn't just sitting in books on the shelf. We have used these research findings to pinpoint the causes of many diseases, such as sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, and chronic myelogenous leukemia. Moreover, scientists have used genetic information to develop several treatments and therapies.

We have made so many achievements and come a long way in our understanding and application of genetics

knowledge. And yet we are just beginning to realize the full potential of this science to predict the onset of disease, diagnose earlier, and develop therapies that can treat or cure Americans from so many afflictions.

Just 3 years ago, scientists at the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy reached another major landmark, with the completion of the sequencing of the entire human genome, described by many as the Holy Grail of biology.

The completion of the Human Genome Project, HGP, has paved the way for a more sophisticated understanding of disease causation. HGP has expanded focus from the science of genetics, which refers to study of single genes, to genomics, which describes the study of all the genes in an individual, as well as the interactions of those genes with each other and with that person's environment.

We know that all human beings are 99.9 percent identical in genetic makeup, but differences in the remaining 0.1 percent hold important clues about the causes of disease and response to drugs. Simply put, the study of genomics will help us learn why some people get sick and others do not and will allow us to use this information to better prevent and treat disease.

The relatively new field of genomics is the key to the practice of personalized medicine. Personalized medicine is the use of genomic and molecular data to better target the delivery of health care, facilitate the discovery and clinical testing of new products, and help determine a patient's predisposition to a particular disease or condition. Personalized medicine represents a revolutionary and exciting change in the fundamental approach and practice of medicine

Pharmacogenomics--the study of how genes affect a person's response to drugs--is a critical component of personalized medicine. Even so- called blockbuster drugs are typically effective in only 40 to 60 percent of patients who take them. Other studies have found that up to 15 percent of hospitalized patients experience a serious adverse drug reaction, resulting in more than 100,000 deaths each year. Pharmacogenomics has the potential to dramatically increase the effectiveness and safety of drugs, both of which are major health care concerns.

We have a few examples already of how pharmacogenomics research has helped to save lives. For example, the chemotherapy Purinethol is a lifesaver for kids with leukemia, but in 11 percent of cases, patients suffer severe, sometimes fatal, side effects. In the 1990s, researchers identified the gene variant that prevents affected patients from properly breaking down Purinethol, allowing doctors to screen patients and adjust dosages for safer use of the drug.

Herceptin is a breast cancer drug that initially failed in clinical trials. However, researchers discovered that 1 in 4 breast cancers have too many copies of a certain gene that helps cells grow, divide, and repair themselves. Extra copies of this gene cause uncontrolled and rapid tumor growth. As it turns out, Herceptin is an effective drug for patients with this type of cancer, with significantly improved survival for affected women.

Our Federal agencies have shown leadership in this area, as have many of our private sector partners. I have introduced the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act today to support their efforts and to encourage them to do even more and do it faster. Realizing the promise of personalized medicine will require: continued Federal leadership and agency collaboration; expansion and acceleration of genomics research; a capable genomics workforce; incentives to encourage development of genomic tests and therapies; and greater attention to the quality of genetic tests, direct-to-consumer advertising, and use of personal genomic information.

The Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2006 will address each of these issues. The bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Interagency Working Group to expand and accelerate genomics research, and application of findings from such research, through enhanced communication, collaboration and integration of relevant activities.

Genetic and genomics research will be expanded to increase the collection of data that will advance both fields. The Secretary will also develop a plan for a national biobanking research initiative and a national distributed database, and provide support for local biobanking initiatives.

This bill requests that the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration support efforts to recruit and retain health professionals in the genomics workforce through educational and research opportunities, financial incentives, and modernization of training programs. In addition, the Secretary will promote initiatives to increase the integration of genetics and genomics into all aspects of medical and public health practice, with specific focus on training and guideline development for providers without expertise or experience in the field of genomics.

A financial incentive is included to encourage the development of companion diagnostic tests. Specifically, this Act provides a 100- percent tax credit for research and development costs associated with companion diagnostic tests. This bill also requests the National Academies of Science to formally study this issue in order to provide expert guidance about the level of incentives and potential approaches to really move this area forward.

The safety, efficacy, and availability of information about genetic tests, including pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomics tests, is another focus of this bill. The Secretary will contract with the Institute of Medicine to conduct a study and make recommendations regarding Federal oversight and regulation of genetic tests. After this study is complete, the Secretary will develop a decision matrix to help determine which types of tests require review and the level of review needed for such tests as well as the responsible agency. The Secretary will also establish a specialty area for molecular and biochemical genetics tests at CMS and direct a review the practice of direct-to- consumer marketing.

Last but not least, the bill includes a sense of the Senate regarding genetic nondiscrimination and privacy. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2005, which passed the Senate with a vote of 98 to 0 in February of 2005, contained a number of important provisions to protect the use of personal genetic information and prevent discrimination based on such information. This section reaffirms the importance and the necessity of that act for the responsible advancement of personalized medicine.

Mr. President, we stand at this new frontier of personalized medicine, and like Gregor Mendel, we must explore and test the hypotheses and innovations in the area of genomics that can protect and promote our health. Genomics holds unparalleled promise for public health and for medicine, and the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2006 will help us to fulfill this promise. I urge my colleagues to support me in passing this critical legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2006. This bill will expand and accelerate scientific advancement in the field of genomics, which is already beginning to change the paradigm of medical practice as we know it and will have profound implications for health and health care in this Nation.

Almost 150 years ago, Gregor Mendel made history when he established the Laws of Heredity, which detailed his early knowledge about the fundamentals of inheritance. As has happened so many times throughout history, Mr. Mendel's fellow scientists didn't fully understand, support or necessarily agree with his hypotheses on genes, specifically how they are transmitted from one generation to the next, and how they help to define who we are. But he persevered--growing, observing and experimenting on 10,000 pea plants for almost a decade--and we know now that his ideas were right.

I mention Mr. Mendel not just because he was an early pioneer in the field of genetics, and is considered by many to be the father of genetics, but also because he had vision, intellectual curiosity, courage to think independently and question the status quo, and of course tenacity, all of which ultimately opened the door to a scientific revolution.

Since that time, our knowledge about genetics has dramatically increased. We have unlocked many of the mysteries about DNA and RNA, their structure and function, and how their code is translated into the proteins that make up the tissues and organs of the human body. Researchers have also made discoveries about DNA replication, and genetic recombination and regulation, just to name a few, and have developed the necessary technologies to do all of this work.

This knowledge isn't just sitting in books on the shelf. We have used these research findings to pinpoint the causes of many diseases, such as sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, and chronic myelogenous leukemia. Moreover, scientists have used genetic information to develop several treatments and therapies.

We have made so many achievements and come a long way in our understanding and application of genetics

knowledge. And yet we are just beginning to realize the full potential of this science to predict the onset of disease, diagnose earlier, and develop therapies that can treat or cure Americans from so many afflictions.

Just 3 years ago, scientists at the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy reached another major landmark, with the completion of the sequencing of the entire human genome, described by many as the Holy Grail of biology.

The completion of the Human Genome Project, HGP, has paved the way for a more sophisticated understanding of disease causation. HGP has expanded focus from the science of genetics, which refers to study of single genes, to genomics, which describes the study of all the genes in an individual, as well as the interactions of those genes with each other and with that person's environment.

We know that all human beings are 99.9 percent identical in genetic makeup, but differences in the remaining 0.1 percent hold important clues about the causes of disease and response to drugs. Simply put, the study of genomics will help us learn why some people get sick and others do not and will allow us to use this information to better prevent and treat disease.

The relatively new field of genomics is the key to the practice of personalized medicine. Personalized medicine is the use of genomic and molecular data to better target the delivery of health care, facilitate the discovery and clinical testing of new products, and help determine a patient's predisposition to a particular disease or condition. Personalized medicine represents a revolutionary and exciting change in the fundamental approach and practice of medicine

Pharmacogenomics--the study of how genes affect a person's response to drugs--is a critical component of personalized medicine. Even so- called blockbuster drugs are typically effective in only 40 to 60 percent of patients who take them. Other studies have found that up to 15 percent of hospitalized patients experience a serious adverse drug reaction, resulting in more than 100,000 deaths each year. Pharmacogenomics has the potential to dramatically increase the effectiveness and safety of drugs, both of which are major health care concerns.

We have a few examples already of how pharmacogenomics research has helped to save lives. For example, the chemotherapy Purinethol is a lifesaver for kids with leukemia, but in 11 percent of cases, patients suffer severe, sometimes fatal, side effects. In the 1990s, researchers identified the gene variant that prevents affected patients from properly breaking down Purinethol, allowing doctors to screen patients and adjust dosages for safer use of the drug.

Herceptin is a breast cancer drug that initially failed in clinical trials. However, researchers discovered that 1 in 4 breast cancers have too many copies of a certain gene that helps cells grow, divide, and repair themselves. Extra copies of this gene cause uncontrolled and rapid tumor growth. As it turns out, Herceptin is an effective drug for patients with this type of cancer, with significantly improved survival for affected women.

Our Federal agencies have shown leadership in this area, as have many of our private sector partners. I have introduced the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act today to support their efforts and to encourage them to do even more and do it faster. Realizing the promise of personalized medicine will require: continued Federal leadership and agency collaboration; expansion and acceleration of genomics research; a capable genomics workforce; incentives to encourage development of genomic tests and therapies; and greater attention to the quality of genetic tests, direct-to-consumer advertising, and use of personal genomic information.

The Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2006 will address each of these issues. The bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Interagency Working Group to expand and accelerate genomics research, and application of findings from such research, through enhanced communication, collaboration and integration of relevant activities.

Genetic and genomics research will be expanded to increase the collection of data that will advance both fields. The Secretary will also develop a plan for a national biobanking research initiative and a national distributed database, and provide support for local biobanking initiatives.

This bill requests that the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration support efforts to recruit and retain health professionals in the genomics workforce through educational and research opportunities, financial incentives, and modernization of training programs. In addition, the Secretary will promote initiatives to increase the integration of genetics and genomics into all aspects of medical and public health practice, with specific focus on training and guideline development for providers without expertise or experience in the field of genomics.

A financial incentive is included to encourage the development of companion diagnostic tests. Specifically, this Act provides a 100- percent tax credit for research and development costs associated with companion diagnostic tests. This bill also requests the National Academies of Science to formally study this issue in order to provide expert guidance about the level of incentives and potential approaches to really move this area forward.

The safety, efficacy, and availability of information about genetic tests, including pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomics tests, is another focus of this bill. The Secretary will contract with the Institute of Medicine to conduct a study and make recommendations regarding Federal oversight and regulation of genetic tests. After this study is complete, the Secretary will develop a decision matrix to help determine which types of tests require review and the level of review needed for such tests as well as the responsible agency. The Secretary will also establish a specialty area for molecular and biochemical genetics tests at CMS and direct a review the practice of direct-to- consumer marketing.

Last but not least, the bill includes a sense of the Senate regarding genetic nondiscrimination and privacy. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2005, which passed the Senate with a vote of 98 to 0 in February of 2005, contained a number of important provisions to protect the use of personal genetic information and prevent discrimination based on such information. This section reaffirms the importance and the necessity of that act for the responsible advancement of personalized medicine.

Mr. President, we stand at this new frontier of personalized medicine, and like Gregor Mendel, we must explore and test the hypotheses and innovations in the area of genomics that can protect and promote our health. Genomics holds unparalleled promise for public health and for medicine, and the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2006 will help us to fulfill this promise. I urge my colleagues to support me in passing this critical legislation.

Mr. President, every one of us in Congress has heard from our constituents about the high cost of gas. A gallon is now $3 or more in most parts of the country, and there is every

reason to believe that figure will continue to climb throughout the rest of the summer.

Americans are asking their Members of Congress to help lower some of these costs. And we should do that. But let us not kid ourselves. This is a problem that was decades in the making, and short-term political solutions--whether it is a tax rebate or more legislation to stop price gouging--aren't going to be the complete answer.

To be sure, most of these proposals would do no harm, and many would provide Americans some temporary relief at the pump. But in the long term, we can't rely solely on quick fixes designed to placate an anxious public.

We need solutions designed to permanently lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately, both Congress and the White House have been unwilling to take the politically difficult steps necessary to confront one of the most pressing economic and national security challenges of the 21st century.

A perfect example is the bill before us. It does do some good things: it marginally increases the supply of oil, and it provides a financial boost to Gulf Coast States that could use the help.

But fundamentally, the bill only focuses on part of the problem--our inadequate supply of oil. Unfortunately, increasing supply can't be our only answer. Even if we opened up every square inch of this country for drilling, America only has 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. With our own Energy Department telling us that our demand for oil will jump 40 percent over the next 20 years and countries such as China and India adding millions of cars to their roads, this means that if we truly hope to solve this problem, we must focus on reducing demand.

Members on both sides of the aisle have suggested some innovative ways to do this. Senator Lugar and I introduced the America Fuels Act to increase the production of homegrown biofuels. And Senator Bunning and I have worked on a bill to produce liquid fuels from coal.

Unfortunately, we are not going to have a debate this week on how to reduce the demand for oil, because we weren't allowed to add any amendments to this bill that would focus on that problem. Because contrary to the judgment of every credible person who has examined our Nation's energy woes, the Republican leadership in the Senate believes we can solve our energy problems by just drilling more. That is not only dishonest; it is a disservice to our constituents who want us to work together to solve this crisis.

I would like to spend a few minutes today discussing two of the proposals that should have been part of this energy debate--two proposals that could have made this bill worthwhile.

First, we need to start producing cars that use less oil. Thirty- three years ago, this Nation faced an energy crisis that affected every American. In the shadow of a war against Israel, the Arab nations of OPEC chose to embargo shipments of crude oil to the West. The shocks were felt in national economies worldwide. Washington lawmakers responded by creating daylight savings time and a national speed limit. A new Department of Energy and a Strategic Petroleum Reserve was established. And Congress enacted Corporate Average Fuel Economy--or CAFE--standards, the first-ever requirements to reduce petroleum consumption in the vehicles we drive.

As a result, the gas mileage of cars doubled from 14 miles per gallon in 1976 to 27.5 mpg for cars in 1985. Today, CAFE saves us about 3 million barrels of oil per day, making it among the most successful energy-saving measures ever adopted. But that decade's worth of fuel consumption improvements ended more than 20 years ago, because CAFE standards are the same today as they were in 1985 27.5 mpg for cars.

To address this problem, I have joined with Senator Lugar and a bipartisan coalition of senators to propose the Fuel Economy Reform Act, which we have also filed as an amendment to the OCS bill.

This amendment would establish regular, continual, and incremental progress in fuel economy, but still preserve the expertise and flexibility of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration--or NHTSA--to determine how to meet those targets.

Under this proposal, CAFE standards would increase by 4 percent every year unless NHTSA can justify a deviation in that rate by proving that the increase is either technologically unachievable, would materially reduce the safety of automobiles, or is not cost effective. For too long, the presumption has been that the public would have to prove to the auto industry why it should raise fuel economy standards. This proposal would flip that presumption by asking the auto industry to prove why it can't raise those standards.

Under this system, if the 4 percent annualized improvement occurs for 10 years, we would save 1.3 million barrels of oil per day--an astounding 20 billion gallons of gasoline per year. If gasoline is just $2.50 per gallon, consumers would save $50 billion at the pump in 2018. By 2018, we would be cutting global warming pollution by 220 million metric tons of carbon-dioxide-equivalent gases.

And yet, auto executives are right when they say that transitioning to more fuel-efficient automobiles would be costly at a time of sagging profits and stiff competition, and that's precisely why the Federal Government shouldn't let the industry face these challenges on their own.

The Fuel Economy Act provides tax incentives to retool parts and assembly plants. But we should do more than that. We need to help the Big Three automakers with one of their largest expenses, namely, retiree health care costs, which ran almost $6.7 billion just last year. For GM, these health care costs represent $1,500 of the price of every GM car that is made, which is more than what they pay for the steel.

To that end, I also have filed an amendment to this bill based on the Health Care for Hybrids Act that I introduced last year. That proposal would set up a voluntary program in which automakers could choose to receive Federal financial assistance towards their retiree health care costs. In return, the automakers would be required to reinvest these savings into developing fuel-efficient vehicles.

With the American consumer demanding more hybrid vehicles--and that demand currently being filled by foreign automakers--this proposal could jumpstart the Big Three to commercialize new technology. More American hybrid cars also ensure that there is competition in this growing market, and would help keep car prices affordable.

If we had adopted these two proposals decades ago, when the call for energy independence was first issued in this country, today we wouldn't be nearly as beholden to the whims of oil-rich dictators and surging gas prices. And if we don't take these steps now, we will someday look back on today's $3 per gallon gasoline as the good old days. At that point, no amount of drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf will solve our problems.

We could have taken these commonsense steps now to reduce the demand for oil. We have the need, we have the technology, we have the resources--but with this bill, we refused to find the political will to get it done. We still owe it to the American public to find that will.

Unfortunately, this bill sends the wrong message. Instead of making tough political decisions about how to reduce our insatiable demand for oil, this bill continues to lull the American people into thinking that we can drill our way out of our energy problems. We can't, and for that reason, I plan to vote against this bill.