Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise in support of the bill in general. Secondly, I thank the chairman and ask unanimous consent for the two of us to engage in a bit of a colloquy. I also thank the Senator from West Virginia for allowing me to go forward first with this very brief colloquy.

Mr. President, within the larger discussion of how homeland security funds are allocated, there is a very clear need for some limited discretionary authority for State officials to reallocate homeland security funds to needs not foreseen months earlier and which may arise due to increased threat assessments.

During my discussions across the State of Missouri about homeland security, nearly every police chief and every first responder tells me the same thing: Look, don't tie our hands on how we are going to use money you give us. Leave us some discretion on how to use those funds.

My colleague and friend, Senator Kit Bond, has heard the same message all over Missouri.

On the other hand, the Department of Homeland Security asserts it must tightly control how every dollar is spent.

I appreciate the need for accountability given the Department's mission. I also appreciate that in many instances our first responders know best how to allocate these funds and that sometimes very legitimate concerns fall outside the narrow spending guidelines of the Department.

Accordingly, the amendment I would have offered--and I am not going to offer it--would have expressed the sense of the Senate that:

Five percent of State grants may go to provide security

costs as identified by the Office of Domestic Preparedness

for ``non-national security special events'' as approved by

the Department of Homeland Security.

In closing, I will give a very brief illustration of my point for the chairman and the Senate. In August, St. Louis is going to host a Jewish Youth Olympics called the Maccabi Games. It is a great event. It is going to draw over 5,000 Jewish youth from around the globe. The State's own Homeland Security Office threat assessment team stressed the need for greater security, but there is no latitude to reallocate even a modest sum from the monies awarded to the State.

Clearly there are instances where greater latitude is needed, and I appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with me and with Senator Bond to address this issue.

Mr. President, I close by thanking the chairman and the Senator from West Virginia and look forward to working with the chairman and the committee to establish a means for greater latitude in how Federal homeland security funds are expended.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1376

Mr. President, I rise in support of the bill in general,

and second, I thank the chairman for his support of hypersonics funding

in the bill. The bill increases funding above last year's appropriated

level. I do have a couple of concerns and I appreciate the chairman's

willingness to address them with me in a colloquy.

Hypersonics are the future of aerospace. Later this year NASA will

carry out a further test of the X43-A. This will be done as part of

NASA's hyper-X project, a program devoted to the study and creation of

vehicles that use air-breathing engines at hypersonic speed. If this

test is successful, the aerospace industry will prove that the physics

of hypersonics are correct and our engineers can begin creating the

models that will become the future of the aerospace industry.

This technology will yield unprecedented results, opening up new

commercial markets for industry, furthering human and robotic

exploration in the solar system, and significantly improving national

security. This transformational technology holds great promise for the

development of missiles, unmanned combat air vehicles, manned flight

and next-generation space shuttles. I thank the chairman for his

support, and I ask him for his comments about hypersonics.

I close by thanking the chairman again and look forward

to continuing to work with him and the committee to advance the

technology and research necessary to ensure a strong hypersonics

program. I thank the chairman for the colloquy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for morning business.

Mr. President, I understand S. 1323 is at the desk and is due for its second reading.

I object to further proceedings on the measure at this time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed en bloc to the immediate consideration of the following post office naming bills: Calendar No. 150, S. 867; Calendar No. 152, S. 1207; Calendar No. 153, H.R. 825; Calendar No. 154, H.R. 917; Calendar No. 155, H.R. 925; Calendar No. 156, H.R. 981; Calendar No. 157, H.R. 985; Calendar No. 158, H.R. 1055; Calendar No. 159, H.R. 1368; Calendar No. 160, H.R. 1465; Calendar No. 161, H.R. 1596; Calendar No. 162, H.R. 1609; Calendar No. 163, H.R. 1740; and Calendar No. 164, H.R. 2030.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bills be printed in the Record, with the above occurring en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 185 which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 64, S. 163.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 167, S. 498.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:15 a.m, Thursday, June 26. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the Journal of the proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of S. 1, the prescription drug benefit bill, as provided under the previous order.

Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1, the prescription drug benefit bill. Under the previous agreement, the Senate will begin with two back-to-back rollcall votes upon returning to the bill. The voting sequence will be as follows:

The first vote will be in relation to the Harkin amendment No. 991. The second vote will be in relation to the Edwards amendment No. 1052.

Again, the first vote of tomorrow's session will occur at 9:15 a.m. For the remainder of the day, we will continue to process amendments to S. 1. Members can expect rollcall votes throughout the day and late into the evening tomorrow as the Senate progresses toward completion of this landmark legislation.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Madam President, I appreciate the Senator's comments. I remind him that I have only recently come over from the House and am used to speaking in 3-, 4-, and 5-minute bites where necessary. I will try to adhere to the old standard. I know many people want to speak on this important bill. Many have important amendments they want to offer. I will not delay the Senate very long.

I wanted to come down and speak about this, in part, because this is a problem which has existed for a long time and has hurt a lot of people, and which I am just very encouraged and pleased to say I believe this Congress will finally solve.

I went into the House of Representatives in 1992 and, as many Members do, I often went to parades in the communities I represented. I enjoyed walking in them and shaking hands with folks. There was one couple with whom I got to shake hands virtually every parade in the city of Hazelwood. They would sit in the garage watching the parade. I would run up the driveway and visit with them. Every year, we would visit about this issue. They would take a minute--not too long because the parade was going by--and tell me of the struggles they were going through because there was no prescription drug feature to their Medicare coverage. They were making the choice that many senior citizens in the State of Missouri have to make every day between the cost of their prescription drugs and the cost of other necessities of life.

That choice hurts all of us. It hurts them, hurts their families who worry about them, and it hurts all of us because they often resolve that dilemma against buying the prescription drugs. Those drugs are often medicine they need to stay healthy. It is one of the things that is so self-defeating about our current policy because if folks cannot take the drugs they need, they get sick, and then Medicare covers the treatment and it costs a lot more than if we had simply helped them stay healthy in the first place.

We should not interpret any of this as a slap at Medicare. Medicare is a program which has provided important medical care for tens of millions of people for a generation. But it was devised in 1965 when nobody had prescription drug coverage. Prescription drugs were not a major feature of ongoing medical care in those days. Since then, it has become a very common feature of health insurance to have some kind of prescription drug coverage. But we have not updated Medicare to keep pace with those changes. We have not strengthened and improved Medicare as we should have. But now we are going to. That is the good news.

That is really the message I wanted to come down here and deliver. To me, the legislation is all about the principles and, yes, of course, it is about the details, but first you have to try to do the right thing, and then you have to check the details to make certain you are trying to do the right thing.

We need coverage that goes into effect, at least partially, right away. Seniors have waited long enough. We have been promising long enough, and now we need to deliver. We need coverage that is permanent, not one that sunsets a few years from now. We need voluntary coverage in the sense that you don't have to change your coverage if you have another method you like better. This bill qualifies on that count. We need coverage that targets the bulk of its relief for the people who need it the most. This is something that in townhall meetings all over Missouri seniors have said this to me. The folks with the lowest income and the highest prescription drug costs should get the most relief. This bill makes efforts to achieve that, and I think it largely does.

We need legislation that has a reasonable system of copays and deductibles for those who can afford them because that is the way we control overutilization, and overutilization can be bad for everybody. If too much money that we don't need to spend has to be spent in the prescription drug area, that is less money for care for heart patients or kidney patients or maintaining the standards at our teaching hospitals, which is so important to the quality of Medicare.

We need a bill that provides choices for people, one that competes for the business of these seniors, to make certain they are getting the highest quality at the lowest cost that we are capable of providing.

There are going to be many amendments offered to this bill. I am going to vote for some of them. There is one I believe we will see today that will help make certain that local pharmacies are able to participate. I think that is a great idea. I will vote for that amendment. I will vote against some. Some will undoubtedly carry and some will fail.

It is my intention to vote for this bill on final passage--almost no matter what. I don't want to sign a complete blank check here, but I cannot imagine changes that would be made to the bill that would keep me from voting to send this bill on, to move this process forward, to begin keeping the promise we have made over and over and over again in the last few years to that generation of Americans who won the Second World War, who set up the architecture of containment that won the cold war, and built this country by their work, faith, sweat and, effort. That is what this bill represents to me.

I congratulate the Finance Committee, the chairman, and the ranking member for producing this bill. It is, at minimum, a noble effort, a good first step. I think it is probably better than that, but, at minimum, it is that. We cannot get to the end if we don't take the first step. That is what this bill represents. I am pleased to be here supporting it. I hope we can strengthen and improve the bill as we strengthen and improve Medicare, and I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words on the floor.

I yield the floor at this time.

Perhaps I should want to do another 30 minutes or so. I am

kidding. I had all the time I needed, and I appreciate the suggestion.

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

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

Mr. President, I want to speak briefly on the renewable fuels standard that is the subject of the Frist-Daschle amendment, and specifically with regard to a report released today by the National Corn Growers which contains yet another round of good news regarding ethanol.

For decades, those of us who care about energy in the United States and care about energy independence, who care about jobs and the creation of jobs, who care about the future and how we are going to have enough energy for this economy to expand throughout the 21st century have looked for alternative sources of energy. The Energy bill we are debating is a great progrowth, projobs Energy bill across the board. It encourages the production of traditional forms of energy, and it should. It encourages the production of oil and natural gas and nuclear energy. I support all of that. I think most of us in this Senate do. But all of us are concerned about the fact that the traditional forms of energy tend to be nonrenewable. There is a point at which we are in danger of running out. We import a lot of oil from foreign countries. About 59 percent of what we use in the United States we import.

We have all wanted and have talked about for decades the possibility of renewable sources of energy, particularly that we can make here. I go around Missouri and I talk with our corn growers and other agricultural producers about what a great day it will be when we can grow our own fuel effectively and when we don't have to worry about running out and being dependent on other countries.

As the Frist-Daschle amendment indicates, that day, if it is not here, is fast approaching. We are close to being able to grow our own fuel. That fuel is ethanol. It is a great day when that means more jobs for America. It will mean a greater measure of energy independence for our country and a greater measure of energy security for our country. It will mean support for and new markets for our family farmers and our agricultural producers. It is a good thing.

I am glad Senator Frist and Senator Daschle have offered this amendment. I am a strong supporter of it. In fact, I am a cosponsor of it. I am proud of the fact that ethanol will be the subject of one of the first genuine bipartisan efforts in this country, and I hope that amendment passes.

The Corn Growers issued a report today designed to rebut some of the concerns that people have expressed. It is kind of ironic that we are now approaching this day when we actually have access to renewable sources of energy and alternative fuels. And some are getting nervous about it. Their report issued today indicates what common sense already tells us.

First of all, blending ethanol with gasoline at a 10-percent level, which is what the renewable fuels standard calls for, will reduce the retail price of conventional gas by 5 percent or 6.6 cents per gallon based on national average 2002 prices. This translates into an annual savings to consumers of $3.3 billion. The report says that. They have studied it for a long time. It really is a matter of common sense because when you increase the supply, the price goes down. The more ethanol we produce, the more we can rely on renewable sources we can grow and the greater the supply of energy.

The report also indicated that using corn and other grains to produce the 5 billion gallons of ethanol required by the renewable fuels standard will have an insignificant impact on consumer food prices.

In other words, the price of corn and other items is not going to go up because we have tremendous productive capacity in this country. As a matter of fact, we are not using the capacity we have. As a matter of fact, the price to consumers is going to go down because as our producers are able to grow corn and turn it into a value-added commodity, a valuable commodity, ethanol, the price of future farm bills is going to go down.

I was impressed very much when I was in Macon, MO, visiting our ethanol plant there. One of the producers who owns that plant pulled me aside and said: Senator Talent, the real good thing about this is when the price of corn goes down, I make more money on the ethanol.

I thought to myself: Yes, that is one of the keys to ethanol. It will help smooth out some of the cycles of commodity prices, the ups and downs of commodity prices worldwide, which will mean that farm bills will become less challenging every 5 years. It will also mean more money for the transportation trust fund once we have adopted the tax changes that the Finance Committee has worked out and which will accompany or follow shortly after this Energy bill.

It is a good thing for America. It is a good thing for our producers. It is a good thing for the creation of jobs.

I am glad this amendment is being offered. I want to address briefly the amendment of the Senator from California. I know it is an amendment offered in good faith. It is an amendment to exempt California from the renewable fuels standard. It is a little hard for me to understand because the standard is not a mandate for the States. It is a mandate for the refineries. They have to have 5 billion gallons of ethanol refined and into circulation by the year 2012. That should not be difficult.

The use of ethanol is growing all over the country, precisely because of the advantages it offers, which I have outlined. Exempting States doesn't make any sense. California is already using ethanol. By this summer, 60 to 70 percent of the gasoline sold in California will be an ethanol blend.

I suspect that maybe States such as California think: we don't produce ethanol here; we don't want to have to import energy from other States. If you do not import energy from other States, and if you do not import ethanol from other States, you are going to have to import something from someplace in order to run the automobiles. I would a whole heck of a lot rather have States in this country importing ethanol, which is good for the environment and jobs in the United States, from other States in the U.S. than the alternative, which is to import gasoline, which is not as good for the environment and which does not mean jobs for our country, from Venezuela or from the Arab States or from some other place in the world. They are taking one of the tremendous virtues of the renewable fuels standard and trying to turn it into a vice.

It will reduce our dependence on foreign countries.

There is really no danger to the United States being dependent on fuel that we produce in the United States. It is a good thing to be dependent on fuel we produce in Missouri or Minnesota or North Dakota or South Dakota or Illinois or any of the number of States that produce ethanol.

I understand the uneasiness. The use of ethanol is growing very fast. Its future is coming on us very fast. Sometimes change is difficult to deal with. I was in a Breaktime convenience store in Columbia, MO, where they are selling ethanol at the pump for the same price they have traditionally sold gasoline. I went to this place, stood out next to the pump, talked to the proprietors, and said: This is the future. It is a good future. It is a national future for the United States. This is a national energy policy. We have one Union, not just 50 different States. We have one national economy, and we ought to have one renewable fuels standard for everybody, and we ought to have confidence in it.

I think this 5-billion-gallon standard will be very easily attained. I think we will be above that. States all over the country and consumers all over the country are using ethanol to their benefit and to the benefit of the Nation as

a whole. This is a pro-jobs, pro-growth Energy bill, and the Frist- Daschle amendment is a very important pro-jobs, pro-growth, pro-energy security and independence part of it.

Let's adopt that amendment. We do not need these weakening amendments. Let's face the future with confidence. One of the reasons we can do that is because the Nation will increasingly rely on fuel that we produce in this country in the 50 States.

I thank the Senate for its attention, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.