Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the 1-163rd infantry battalion of Montana's National Guard for their continued contribution to our Nation. In peacetime, these soldiers have performed admirably at home in Montana, but in wartime the members of the first of the l63rd infantry battalion truly deserve recognition.

For 18 months, they were deployed to Iraq where, on a daily basis, they risked their lives to defend our Nation's core beliefs--freedom, justice, and equality. In November of 2005, 700 troops returned home to Montana.

While serving abroad, these men and women spent the majority of their time at 3 forward operating bases in northern Iraq. They bravely undermined insurgency in the largest and most dangerous area in the 116th Brigade's area of operations.

These Montanans risked their lives daily during their field operations. In total, the 1-163rd infantry battalion performed 6,400 patrols where they encountered frequent attacks. During their deployment, the 1-163rd engaged in over 35 direct battles with members of the Iraqi insurgency and received small arms fire over 130 times. The battalion also defused almost 200 improvised explosive devices, IEDs, and experienced 359 IED detonations.

In addition to the routine patrols that the unit regularly performed, the battalion also conduced 35 task force level operations, 10 joint task force air assault missions, and 120 deliberate company-level operations.

Despite the dangerous conditions, the 1-163rd infantry battalion still made considerable advances in neutralizing their area of operations. The battalion was able to reduce the number of arms and insurgents in the area. Hundreds of Iraqi weapon systems were confiscated, including AK-47s, rocket propelled grenades and mortar tubes, and over 100 insurgents were detained. These efforts were critical in minimizing the likelihood of future attacks in the area.

Not only did the 1-l63rd improve the overall safety of northern Iraq, but this infantry battalion also participated in the extensive reconstruction effort. In total, 68 projects worth $7.5 million were successfully implemented by the battalion. Countless improvements to municipalities in northern Iraq are directly attributable to the 1- 163rd.

Today I wish to especially commend two members of the 1-163rd who did not return home but instead gave their lives in service to this great Nation. SGT Travis Arndt, 23, from Great Falls, MT, was killed in action near Kirkuk, Iraq, on September 21, 2005. MSG Robbie McNary, 42, died in combat in Hawijah, Iraq, on March 31, 2005, leaving behind his wife and three children in Lewistown, MT. Let us remember them for their honorable service and ultimate sacrifice.

As a Montanan, an American, and a Senator, I would like to truly thank and commend the first of the 163rd infantry battalion of the Montana's National Guard for their excellent performance during this last deployment and their impressive dedication and loyalty to this nation.

In November, when the 1-163rd returned to Montana from their 18-month deployment, they were applauded for their success, but I would like to keep that recognition alive. Long after this war on terror is over, we will remember their contribution to our most valuable freedom and security. Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise to comment on legislation that Chairman Grassley and I introduced yesterday that would limit public trustees for Social Security and Medicare to a single four-year term of service. The bill, S. 2752, will also codify that the President should consult with Congress on the nominations of public trustees for these important programs. This legislation was prompted by recent events.

Upon learning last November that the White House intended to renominate John L. Palmer and Thomas R. Saving as pubic trustees, Chairman Grassley and I both responded immediately that the White House should find two new individuals to nominate as public trustees. Both individuals had already served one term as Social Security and Medicare public trustees, and their terms ended in March 2005. Dr. Palmer and Dr. Saving served admirably as public trustees during their term and the Chairman and I thank them for their service, but I did not want to see an important tradition abandoned. Never in the history of the public trustees have individuals served more than one term, and that's for good reason. Fresh thinking and new ideas are critical to the proper assessment and administration of the Social Security and Medicare programs. If the executive branch will not voluntarily follow this vital precedent, this principle must be written into law.

There was a second problem last year. The White House is supposed to consult with the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee before sending the nominations to the Senate. Unfortunately, no such consultation occurred last year prior to the nominations being forwarded to the Senate. Therefore, the blll a adds language to the Social Security Act requiring the President to consult with the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Finance before considering individuals to be nominated as public trustees.

Ignoring our views, on April 19 of this year, the White House announced the recess appointments of Mr. Palmer and Mr. Saving as public trustees of the Social Security and Medicare programs. I immediately objected to this action by the White House because I believe the role of the public trustees is too important to be diminished by the recess appointment process. It was this extreme action on the part of the White House--in combination with the other two problems I mentioned previously--that prompted the chairman and me to introduce this bill today.

I think some good has come out of this unfortunate episode regarding the public trustees. Hopefully, everyone has a better understanding of the role of the public trustees. The Greenspan Commission recommended creating the positions of two public trustees to help ensure that the reports on the Social Security and Medicare trust funds were objective and not solely the work of administration officials. The Greenspan Commission envisioned experts from outside the executive branch who are confirmed by the Senate. They are unlike most other Presidential appointments because they do not represent the administration, they represent the public. Because of that unique distinction, it is inappropriate to recess appoint the public trustees. Individuals who are nominated to be public trustees should be selected by a process of consultation between the White House and Members of Congress. Once confirmed by the Senate, they should only serve one term. To do otherwise undermines the public trustees' role as an objective check on the production of the trust fund reports.

Since this legislation should not spark any controversy, I hope both Chambers will quickly consider and pass this bill and send it to the President for his signature.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the bipartisan amendment that Finance Committee Chairman Grassley has just offered. As ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, I have worked with Chairman Grassley to develop this amendment. The amendment provides $38 million to the Social Security Administration, SSA--fully paid for--to reimburse the costs SSA incurred as a result of Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes of the 2005 season.

The supplemental appropriations bill, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, would appropriate $106.5 billion, including $ 67.7 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, $4.5 billion for foreign assistance programs, and $27.1 billion for relief needed because of last season's hurricanes. In contrast, no funding for SSA to make up for its costs from Katrina and the other hurricanes is currently provided in the supplemental.

The Social Security Administration performed superbly in the aftermath of these hurricanes. SSA assisted more than 528,000 persons in FEMA Disaster Recovery Centers and shelters and helped many others who came to its field offices. To provide such assistance, SSA urgently invoked emergency procedures and issued approximately 85,000 immediate payments for displaced beneficiaries and those who could not access their bank or other financial accounts. In addition, SSA changed the addresses of displaced beneficiaries, provided individuals who had lost their identification documents with confirmation of their Social Security numbers, and took applications from many people from the affected areas who had become newly eligible for Social Security disability or survivors benefits or benefits from the Supplemental Security Income program. SSA even passed along messages to beneficiaries from worried family members. Finally, some SSA employees drove hours to provide relief to overstretched field offices, sometimes sleeping on air mattresses set up in the offices because there were no other places to stay.

Together, these activities caused SSA to redirect $38 million from funding for its normal tasks and obligations. There were costs to SSA of $6 million to acquire and outfit temporary space and renovate offices damaged by the storm, including costs for computers, furniture and supplies. SSA estimates that there were $12 million in costs for new workloads, including processing immediate payments, changing addresses, confirming Social Security numbers, and taking new claims that resulted from the hurricanes. It cost SSA $7 million to pay for the travel and per diem expenses for employees who came to the affected areas from other regions to help, as well as for employees who were forced to relocate because of damaged or destroyed homes and offices and who continued to work in other offices. Costs related to unprocessed work include $12 million for SSA workloads, such as claims, hearings, that were not processed as a result of the storms' disruptions. Nearly $1 million was spent to pay the salaries of those SSA workers who volunteered to work for FEMA in the affected areas, and thus were not doing their regular SSA work.

Unfortunately for SSA, it had already had its funding cut by a total of $300 million below the President's request for fiscal year 2006. Rather than being able to absorb the $38 million caused by the hurricanes, SSA found its $300 million shortfall being exacerbated by these additional $38 million of costs.

The Social Security Administration could make very good use of an additional $38 million of funding for fiscal year 2006 at this time by increasing overtime hours. This would allow SSA to make up for a small piece of the reductions and delays of service to its normal applicants and beneficiaries.

In the Senate-passed supplemental, many Federal agencies are reimbursed for costs arising from these hurricanes. Surprisingly, that is not the case for the Social Security Administration. This is especially ironic in view of the efforts of the Social Security Administration and its employees to help the gulf coast and its citizens, including some efforts that were above and beyond the call of duty.

This bipartisan amendment will address this funding shortfall for the Social Security Administration by providing it with an additional $38 million for the current fiscal year. The amendment is fully paid for. As reported by the Appropriations Committee, the supplemental appropriations bill provides $10.6 billion to FEMA for disaster relief from Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes of the 2005 season. Of this amount, according to the committee report, $2.4 billion is provided for ``other needs.'' Although the report provides some examples of such ``other needs,'' there is no list of specific projects and activities whose costs total $2.4 billion. This amendment increases SSA's funding for fiscal year 2006 by $38 million and reduces the $10.6 billion appropriated for the FEMA Disaster Relief account in this bill. The $2.4 billion provided by this bill for ``other needs'' is part of the $10.6 billion appropriated for the FEMA Disaster Relief account in the bill. This amendment will not result in the loss of any specific project or activity provided for by this bill. Nor will it cause

this bill to result in any additional costs to the Federal Government.

This amendment will restore the loss of resources for the Social Security Administration that has resulted from the 2005 season's hurricanes. I believe this is the right thing to do. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment.

Mr. President, on October 4, 1957, an object the size of a basketball shot into space. And history changed.

The Soviet Union had launched Sputnik. And Americans reacted with fear. That fear quickly turned to determination to win the race to space.

Just one month later, the Russians launched Sputnik II with one precious passenger: a Russian mutt named Laika. Laika became the first living being to orbit earth. Today, a dog in space might seem like a good start for a Disney film. But in 1957, American scientists worried that these events foreshadowed Soviet military and strategic advantage.

By the following summer, Congress had created NASA. Sputnik's launch had provided the catalyst. For years before, scientific organizations and even the White House had declared the exploration of space as a priority. It took Sputnik to move us to action.

Half a century later, we find ourselves waiting for the next Sputnik. Report after report has outlined the risk that America runs by not doing more in research and education. A recent report entitled ``Waiting for Sputnik'' cautions that our workforce must include a greater percentage of ``knowledge workers''--including scientists and engineers--if we are to maintain our technological lead in defense capabilities. And another recent report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' expresses fear that America's lead in science and technology can be abruptly lost and difficult or impossible to regain.

What these reports and others are telling us is one thing: We cannot wait for the next Sputnik. We must recognize that our advantage is fleeting. We must begin today with more science, more education, and more commitment to research to prepare for the future.

Asia has recognized this. Asia is plowing more funding into science and education. China, in particular, understands that technological advancement means security, independence, and economic growth. Spending on research and development has increased by 140 percent in China, Korea and Taiwan. In America, it has increased by only 34 percent.

Asia's commitment is already paying off. More than a hundred Fortune 500 companies have opened research centers in India and China. I have visited some of them. I was impressed with the level of skill of the workers I met there.

China's commitment to research, at $60 billion in expenditures, is dramatic by any measure. Over the last few years, China has doubled the share of its economy that it invests in research. China intends to double the amount committed to basic research in the next decade. Currently, only America beats out China in numbers of researchers in the workforce.

Over the last few months, I have offered a series of proposals to improve America's competitiveness. Today, I am pleased to introduce the Research Competitiveness Act of 2006. This bill would improve our research competitiveness in four major areas. All four address incentives in our tax code. Government also supports research through Federal spending. But I am not addressing those areas today.

First, my bill improves and simplifies the credit for applied research in section 41 of the tax code. This credit has grown to be overly complex, both for taxpayers and the IRS. Beginning in 2008, my bill would create a simpler 20 percent credit for qualifying research expenses that exceed 50 percent of the average expenses for the prior 3 years.

And just as important: The bill makes the credit permanent. Because the credit has been temporary, it has simply not been as effective as it could be. Since its creation in 1981, it has been extended 10 times. Congress even allowed it to lapse during one period.

The credit expired again just last December. And another short-term extension is pending in both tax reconciliation bills in conference. Last year, the experts at the Joint Committee on Taxation wrote: ``Perhaps the greatest criticism of the R&E credit among taxpayers regards its temporary nature.'' Joint Tax went on to say, ``A credit of longer duration may more successfully induce additional research than would a temporary credit, even if the temporary credit is periodically renewed.''

Currently, there are two different ways to claim a tax credit for qualifying research expenses. First, the ``traditional'' credit relies on incremental increases in expenses compared to a mid-1980s base period. Second, the ``alternative incremental'' credit measures the increase in research over the average of the prior 4 years.

Both of these credits have base periods involving gross receipts. My bill replaces these with a new credit, known as the ``Alternative Simplified Credit,'' based on research spending without reference to gross receipts. The current formula hurts companies that have fluctuating sales. And it hurts companies that take on a new line of business not dependent on research.

The Senate has passed this alternative formula as an optional credit several times. It is now pending in both versions of the tax reconciliation bill. It has not yet been enacted, though, even on a temporary basis.

I support the 2-year extension of the R&E credit contained in the Senate version of the tax reconciliation bill. That is why this new simpler formula in my bill would not start until 2008. That start date would give companies plenty of time to adjust their accounting.

The main complaint about the existing credits is that they are very complex, particularly the reference to the 20-year-old base period. This base period creates problems for the taxpayer in trying to calculate the credit. And it creates problems for the IRS in trying to administer and audit those claims.

The new credit focuses only on expenses, not gross receipts. And is still an incremental credit, so that companies must continue to increase research spending over time.

A tax credit is a cost-effective way to promote R&E. A report by the Congressional Research Service finds that without government support, investment in R&E would fall short of the socially optimal amount. Thus CRS endorses Government policies to boost private sector R&E.

Also, American workers who are engaged in R&E activities benefit from some of the most intellectually stimulating, high-paying, high-skilled jobs in the economy.

My own State of Montana has excellent examples of this economic activity. During the 1990s, about 400 establishments in Montana provided high-technology services, at an average wage of about $35,000 per year. These jobs paid nearly 80 percent more than the average private sector wage, which was less than $20,000 a year during the same period. Many of these jobs would never have been created without the assistance of the R&E credit.

My research bill would also establish a uniform reimbursement rate for all contract and consortia R&E. It would provide that 80 percent of expenses for research performed for the taxpayer by other parties count as qualifying research expenses under the regular credit.

Currently, when a taxpayer pays someone else to perform research for the taxpayer, the taxpayer can claim one of three rates in order to determine how much the taxpayer can include for the research credit. The lower amount is meant to assure overhead expenses that normally do not qualify for the R&E credit are not counted. Different rates, however, create unnecessary complexity. Therefore, my bill creates a uniform rate of 80 percent.

The second major research area that this bill addresses is the need to enhance and simplify the credit for basic research. This credit benefits universities and other entities committed to basic research. And it benefits the companies or individuals who donate to them. My bill provides that payments under the university basic research credit would count as contractor expenses at the rate of 100 percent.

The current formula for calculating the university basic research credit--defined as research ``for the advancement of science with no specific commercial objective''--is even more complex that the regular traditional R&E credit. Because of this complexity, this credit costs less than one-half of 1 percent of the cost of the regular R&E credit. It is completely under-utilized. It needs to be simplified to encourage businesses to give more for basic research.

American universities have been powerful engines of scientific discovery. To maintain our premier global position in basic research, America relies on sustained high levels of basic research funding and the ability to recruit the most talented students in the world. The gestation of scientific discovery is long. At least at first, we cannot know the commercial applications of a discovery. But America leads the world in biotechnology today because of support for basic research in chemistry and physics in the 1960s. Maintaining a commitment to scientific inquiry, therefore, must be part of our vision for sustained competitiveness.

Translating university discoveries into commercial products also takes innovation, capital, and risk. The Center for Strategic and International Studies asked what kind of government intervention can maintain technological leadership. One source of technological innovation that provides America with comparative advantage is the combination of university research programs, entrepreneurs, and risk capital from venture capital, corporations, or governments. Research clusters around Silicon Valley and North Carolina's Research Triangle exemplify this sort of combination.

The National Academies reached a similar conclusion in a 2002 review of the National Nanotechnology Initiatives. In a report, they wrote: ``To enhance the transition from basic to applied research, the committee recommends that industrial partnerships be stimulated and nurtured to help accelerate the commercialization of national nanotechnology developments.''

To further that goal, the third major area this bill addresses is fostering the creation of research parks. This part of the bill would benefit state and local governments and universities that want to create research centers for businesses incubating scientific discoveries with promise for commercial development.

Stanford created the Nation's first high-tech research park in 1951, in response to the demand for industrial land near the university and an emerging electronics industry tied closely to the School of Engineering. The Stanford Research Park traces its origins to a business started with $538 in a Palo Alto garage by two men named Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard. The Park is now home to 140 companies in electronics, software, biotechnology, and other high tech fields.

Similarly, the North Carolina Research Triangle was founded in 1959 by university, government, and business leaders with money from private contributions. It now has 112 research and development organizations, 37,600 employees, and capital investment of more than $2.7 billion. More recently, Virginia has fostered a research park now housing 53 private-sector companies, nonprofits, VCU research institutes, and state laboratories. The Virginia park employs more than 1,300 people.

The creation of these parks would seem to be an obvious choice. But it takes a significant commitment from a range of sources to bring them into being. To foster the creation and expansion of these successful parks, my bill will encourage their creation through the use of tax- exempt bond financing. Allowing tax-exempt bond authority would bring down the cost to establish such parks.

Foreign countries are emulating this successful formula. They are establishing high-tech clusters through government and university partnerships with private industry.

Back in 2000, a partnership was formed to foster TechRanch to assist Montana State University and other Montana-based research institutions in their efforts to commercialize research. But TechRanch is desperately in need of some new high-tech facilities. It could surely benefit from a provision such as this. I encourage my Colleagues to visit research parks in their States to see how my bill could be helpful in fostering more successful ventures.

A related item is a small fix to help universities that use tax- exempt bonds to build research facilities primarily for federal research in the basic or fundamental research area. Some of these facilities housing federal research--mostly NIH and NSF funded projects--are in danger of losing their tax-exempt bond status. Counsel have notified some state officials that they may be running afoul of a prohibition on ``private use'' in the tax code, because one private party has a superior claim to others in the use of inventions that result from research.

The complication comes from a 1980 law. In 1980, Congress enacted the Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act, also known as the Bayh-Dole Act. The Bayh-Dole Act requires the Federal Government to retain a non- exclusive, royalty-free right on any discovery. In order to foster more basic research through Federal-State-university partnerships, we need to clarify that this provision of the Bayh-Dole act does not cause these bonds to lose their tax-exempt status. And my bill directs the Treasury Department to do so. I understand that the Treasury Department is aware of this significant concern. Whether or not Congress enacts my legislation, I hope that the Treasury Department will clarify the situation later this year.

The fourth major area that my bill addresses is innovation at the small business level. Recently, representatives of a number of small nanotechnology companies came to visit me. They told me that their greatest problem was surviving what they called the ``valley of death.'' That's what they called the first few years of business, when an entrepreneur has a promising technology but little money to test or develop it. Many businesses simply do not survive the ``valley of death.'' I believe that Congress should find a way to assist these businesses with promising technology.

Nanotechnology, for instance, shows much promise. According to one recent report, over the next decade, nanotechnology will affect most manufactured goods. As stated in Senate testimony by one National Science Foundation official earlier this year, ``Nanotechnology is truly our next great frontier in science and engineering.'' It took me a while to understand just what nanotechnology is. But it is basically the control of things at very, very small dimensions. By understanding and controlling at that dimension, people can find new and unique applications. These applications range from common consumer products-- such as making our sunblocks--better to improving disease-fighting medicines--to designing more fuel-efficient cars.

So, to help these small businesses convert their promising science into successful businesses, my bill would establish tax credits for investments in qualifying small technology innovation companies. These struggling start-up ventures often cannot utilize existing incentives in the tax code--like the R&E tax credit--because they have no tax liability and may have little income for the first few years. They need access to cheap capital to get through

those first few research-intensive years.

The credit in my bill would be similar to the existing and successful New Markets Tax Credit. The New Markets Credit has provided billions of dollars of investment to low-income communities across the country. In my bill, entities with some expertise and knowledge of research would receive an allocation from Treasury to analyze and select qualifying research investments. These investment entities would then target small business with promising technologies that focus the majority of their expenditures on activity qualifying as research expenses under the R&E credit.

In sum, my bill would boost both applied and basic research. It would boost research by businesses big and small. And it would foster research by for-profit and non-profits alike.

There is no clear answer to how to address the concerns raised in the ``Waiting for Sputnik'' report. But the answer is clear that we must try--and soon.

A noted environmentalist once said: ``Every major advance in the technological competence of man has forced revolutionary changes in the economic and political structure of society.'' From telephones to rockets to computers, I believe that this is true.

Let us work to see that the next big technological advance is discovered here in America. Only through continued commitment to research can we ensure that it is.

Mr. President, on October 4, 1957, an object the size of a basketball shot into space. And history changed.

The Soviet Union had launched Sputnik. And Americans reacted with fear. That fear quickly turned to determination to win the race to space.

Just one month later, the Russians launched Sputnik II with one precious passenger: a Russian mutt named Laika. Laika became the first living being to orbit earth. Today, a dog in space might seem like a good start for a Disney film. But in 1957, American scientists worried that these events foreshadowed Soviet military and strategic advantage.

By the following summer, Congress had created NASA. Sputnik's launch had provided the catalyst. For years before, scientific organizations and even the White House had declared the exploration of space as a priority. It took Sputnik to move us to action.

Half a century later, we find ourselves waiting for the next Sputnik. Report after report has outlined the risk that America runs by not doing more in research and education. A recent report entitled ``Waiting for Sputnik'' cautions that our workforce must include a greater percentage of ``knowledge workers''--including scientists and engineers--if we are to maintain our technological lead in defense capabilities. And another recent report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' expresses fear that America's lead in science and technology can be abruptly lost and difficult or impossible to regain.

What these reports and others are telling us is one thing: We cannot wait for the next Sputnik. We must recognize that our advantage is fleeting. We must begin today with more science, more education, and more commitment to research to prepare for the future.

Asia has recognized this. Asia is plowing more funding into science and education. China, in particular, understands that technological advancement means security, independence, and economic growth. Spending on research and development has increased by 140 percent in China, Korea and Taiwan. In America, it has increased by only 34 percent.

Asia's commitment is already paying off. More than a hundred Fortune 500 companies have opened research centers in India and China. I have visited some of them. I was impressed with the level of skill of the workers I met there.

China's commitment to research, at $60 billion in expenditures, is dramatic by any measure. Over the last few years, China has doubled the share of its economy that it invests in research. China intends to double the amount committed to basic research in the next decade. Currently, only America beats out China in numbers of researchers in the workforce.

Over the last few months, I have offered a series of proposals to improve America's competitiveness. Today, I am pleased to introduce the Research Competitiveness Act of 2006. This bill would improve our research competitiveness in four major areas. All four address incentives in our tax code. Government also supports research through Federal spending. But I am not addressing those areas today.

First, my bill improves and simplifies the credit for applied research in section 41 of the tax code. This credit has grown to be overly complex, both for taxpayers and the IRS. Beginning in 2008, my bill would create a simpler 20 percent credit for qualifying research expenses that exceed 50 percent of the average expenses for the prior 3 years.

And just as important: The bill makes the credit permanent. Because the credit has been temporary, it has simply not been as effective as it could be. Since its creation in 1981, it has been extended 10 times. Congress even allowed it to lapse during one period.

The credit expired again just last December. And another short-term extension is pending in both tax reconciliation bills in conference. Last year, the experts at the Joint Committee on Taxation wrote: ``Perhaps the greatest criticism of the R&E credit among taxpayers regards its temporary nature.'' Joint Tax went on to say, ``A credit of longer duration may more successfully induce additional research than would a temporary credit, even if the temporary credit is periodically renewed.''

Currently, there are two different ways to claim a tax credit for qualifying research expenses. First, the ``traditional'' credit relies on incremental increases in expenses compared to a mid-1980s base period. Second, the ``alternative incremental'' credit measures the increase in research over the average of the prior 4 years.

Both of these credits have base periods involving gross receipts. My bill replaces these with a new credit, known as the ``Alternative Simplified Credit,'' based on research spending without reference to gross receipts. The current formula hurts companies that have fluctuating sales. And it hurts companies that take on a new line of business not dependent on research.

The Senate has passed this alternative formula as an optional credit several times. It is now pending in both versions of the tax reconciliation bill. It has not yet been enacted, though, even on a temporary basis.

I support the 2-year extension of the R&E credit contained in the Senate version of the tax reconciliation bill. That is why this new simpler formula in my bill would not start until 2008. That start date would give companies plenty of time to adjust their accounting.

The main complaint about the existing credits is that they are very complex, particularly the reference to the 20-year-old base period. This base period creates problems for the taxpayer in trying to calculate the credit. And it creates problems for the IRS in trying to administer and audit those claims.

The new credit focuses only on expenses, not gross receipts. And is still an incremental credit, so that companies must continue to increase research spending over time.

A tax credit is a cost-effective way to promote R&E. A report by the Congressional Research Service finds that without government support, investment in R&E would fall short of the socially optimal amount. Thus CRS endorses Government policies to boost private sector R&E.

Also, American workers who are engaged in R&E activities benefit from some of the most intellectually stimulating, high-paying, high-skilled jobs in the economy.

My own State of Montana has excellent examples of this economic activity. During the 1990s, about 400 establishments in Montana provided high-technology services, at an average wage of about $35,000 per year. These jobs paid nearly 80 percent more than the average private sector wage, which was less than $20,000 a year during the same period. Many of these jobs would never have been created without the assistance of the R&E credit.

My research bill would also establish a uniform reimbursement rate for all contract and consortia R&E. It would provide that 80 percent of expenses for research performed for the taxpayer by other parties count as qualifying research expenses under the regular credit.

Currently, when a taxpayer pays someone else to perform research for the taxpayer, the taxpayer can claim one of three rates in order to determine how much the taxpayer can include for the research credit. The lower amount is meant to assure overhead expenses that normally do not qualify for the R&E credit are not counted. Different rates, however, create unnecessary complexity. Therefore, my bill creates a uniform rate of 80 percent.

The second major research area that this bill addresses is the need to enhance and simplify the credit for basic research. This credit benefits universities and other entities committed to basic research. And it benefits the companies or individuals who donate to them. My bill provides that payments under the university basic research credit would count as contractor expenses at the rate of 100 percent.

The current formula for calculating the university basic research credit--defined as research ``for the advancement of science with no specific commercial objective''--is even more complex that the regular traditional R&E credit. Because of this complexity, this credit costs less than one-half of 1 percent of the cost of the regular R&E credit. It is completely under-utilized. It needs to be simplified to encourage businesses to give more for basic research.

American universities have been powerful engines of scientific discovery. To maintain our premier global position in basic research, America relies on sustained high levels of basic research funding and the ability to recruit the most talented students in the world. The gestation of scientific discovery is long. At least at first, we cannot know the commercial applications of a discovery. But America leads the world in biotechnology today because of support for basic research in chemistry and physics in the 1960s. Maintaining a commitment to scientific inquiry, therefore, must be part of our vision for sustained competitiveness.

Translating university discoveries into commercial products also takes innovation, capital, and risk. The Center for Strategic and International Studies asked what kind of government intervention can maintain technological leadership. One source of technological innovation that provides America with comparative advantage is the combination of university research programs, entrepreneurs, and risk capital from venture capital, corporations, or governments. Research clusters around Silicon Valley and North Carolina's Research Triangle exemplify this sort of combination.

The National Academies reached a similar conclusion in a 2002 review of the National Nanotechnology Initiatives. In a report, they wrote: ``To enhance the transition from basic to applied research, the committee recommends that industrial partnerships be stimulated and nurtured to help accelerate the commercialization of national nanotechnology developments.''

To further that goal, the third major area this bill addresses is fostering the creation of research parks. This part of the bill would benefit state and local governments and universities that want to create research centers for businesses incubating scientific discoveries with promise for commercial development.

Stanford created the Nation's first high-tech research park in 1951, in response to the demand for industrial land near the university and an emerging electronics industry tied closely to the School of Engineering. The Stanford Research Park traces its origins to a business started with $538 in a Palo Alto garage by two men named Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard. The Park is now home to 140 companies in electronics, software, biotechnology, and other high tech fields.

Similarly, the North Carolina Research Triangle was founded in 1959 by university, government, and business leaders with money from private contributions. It now has 112 research and development organizations, 37,600 employees, and capital investment of more than $2.7 billion. More recently, Virginia has fostered a research park now housing 53 private-sector companies, nonprofits, VCU research institutes, and state laboratories. The Virginia park employs more than 1,300 people.

The creation of these parks would seem to be an obvious choice. But it takes a significant commitment from a range of sources to bring them into being. To foster the creation and expansion of these successful parks, my bill will encourage their creation through the use of tax- exempt bond financing. Allowing tax-exempt bond authority would bring down the cost to establish such parks.

Foreign countries are emulating this successful formula. They are establishing high-tech clusters through government and university partnerships with private industry.

Back in 2000, a partnership was formed to foster TechRanch to assist Montana State University and other Montana-based research institutions in their efforts to commercialize research. But TechRanch is desperately in need of some new high-tech facilities. It could surely benefit from a provision such as this. I encourage my Colleagues to visit research parks in their States to see how my bill could be helpful in fostering more successful ventures.

A related item is a small fix to help universities that use tax- exempt bonds to build research facilities primarily for federal research in the basic or fundamental research area. Some of these facilities housing federal research--mostly NIH and NSF funded projects--are in danger of losing their tax-exempt bond status. Counsel have notified some state officials that they may be running afoul of a prohibition on ``private use'' in the tax code, because one private party has a superior claim to others in the use of inventions that result from research.

The complication comes from a 1980 law. In 1980, Congress enacted the Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act, also known as the Bayh-Dole Act. The Bayh-Dole Act requires the Federal Government to retain a non- exclusive, royalty-free right on any discovery. In order to foster more basic research through Federal-State-university partnerships, we need to clarify that this provision of the Bayh-Dole act does not cause these bonds to lose their tax-exempt status. And my bill directs the Treasury Department to do so. I understand that the Treasury Department is aware of this significant concern. Whether or not Congress enacts my legislation, I hope that the Treasury Department will clarify the situation later this year.

The fourth major area that my bill addresses is innovation at the small business level. Recently, representatives of a number of small nanotechnology companies came to visit me. They told me that their greatest problem was surviving what they called the ``valley of death.'' That's what they called the first few years of business, when an entrepreneur has a promising technology but little money to test or develop it. Many businesses simply do not survive the ``valley of death.'' I believe that Congress should find a way to assist these businesses with promising technology.

Nanotechnology, for instance, shows much promise. According to one recent report, over the next decade, nanotechnology will affect most manufactured goods. As stated in Senate testimony by one National Science Foundation official earlier this year, ``Nanotechnology is truly our next great frontier in science and engineering.'' It took me a while to understand just what nanotechnology is. But it is basically the control of things at very, very small dimensions. By understanding and controlling at that dimension, people can find new and unique applications. These applications range from common consumer products-- such as making our sunblocks--better to improving disease-fighting medicines--to designing more fuel-efficient cars.

So, to help these small businesses convert their promising science into successful businesses, my bill would establish tax credits for investments in qualifying small technology innovation companies. These struggling start-up ventures often cannot utilize existing incentives in the tax code--like the R&E tax credit--because they have no tax liability and may have little income for the first few years. They need access to cheap capital to get through

those first few research-intensive years.

The credit in my bill would be similar to the existing and successful New Markets Tax Credit. The New Markets Credit has provided billions of dollars of investment to low-income communities across the country. In my bill, entities with some expertise and knowledge of research would receive an allocation from Treasury to analyze and select qualifying research investments. These investment entities would then target small business with promising technologies that focus the majority of their expenditures on activity qualifying as research expenses under the R&E credit.

In sum, my bill would boost both applied and basic research. It would boost research by businesses big and small. And it would foster research by for-profit and non-profits alike.

There is no clear answer to how to address the concerns raised in the ``Waiting for Sputnik'' report. But the answer is clear that we must try--and soon.

A noted environmentalist once said: ``Every major advance in the technological competence of man has forced revolutionary changes in the economic and political structure of society.'' From telephones to rockets to computers, I believe that this is true.

Let us work to see that the next big technological advance is discovered here in America. Only through continued commitment to research can we ensure that it is.

Mr. President, America has never lacked challenges, nor has it lacked the determination and ingenuity to resolve them.

In our Nation's very first hours, we faced stark realities. Revolutionary War debts put the Treasury $79 million in the red. States could not retire their debt. Our young Nation had no public credit. We also had no source of revenue--much less a means to collect it. And many Americans were as indebted as their Government. The future held promise, but the present was bleak.

America's first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, embraced these challenges. The day after his appointment--a Saturday--he put in motion a plan to get our economy on its feet. In his first weeks, he created a customs service to generate income, established a rudimentary coast guard for enforcement, and laid the foundation for fruitful trade relations with Britain.

These first weeks in office proved Hamilton a man of action. The years that followed showed him a man of vision. The Treasury Secretary authored the legendary Report on Public Credit, the blueprint for America's fiscal system. Not without controversy, his plan consolidated debt and issued new bonds. He raised taxes and set up a national central bank. The legacy of Hamilton's plan endures today.

Hamilton's action and vision launched our Nation's early prosperity. But today, we again face mounting challenges.

Using accrual accounting, the 2005 Financial Report of the United States Government reported that the Government is running a net operating deficit of $760 billion--more than 6 percent of our economy. Our foreign debt to GDP ratio has not been this high since Grover Cleveland was President in the late 19th century.

We face the largest current account deficit in history--more than $800 billion. A rising China and India are testing our innovative capacity and the robustness of our manufacturing sector.

We are also neglecting education and the young minds that will define our future successes. We have forgotten our research institutions that generate ideas and spur innovation. We are abandoning the basic infrastructure that buttresses our economic growth. We have let health care become a burden rather than an asset. We have emptied our saving accounts and neglected investment.

Like newly independent America, the United States today demands vision and action.

I have put forward a comprehensive competitiveness initiative to address these challenges. I have introduced trade competitiveness legislation to make sure our trading partners play by the rules and give our companies and workers a fair shot a success. I have introduced energy competitiveness legislation to promote innovation and research and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

I have also proposed savings competitiveness legislation to close the fiscal gap and encourage Americans to save. Savings boosts investment and innovation. This week I will introduce legislation to boost innovation by revamping and making permanent the R&D tax credit. In the coming weeks, I will introduce ambitious legislation on education, health care, and international tax competitiveness.

But I do not pretend to have all of the answers. That is why today I would like to recognize another initiative that embraces these competitiveness challenges. It is an initiative that invokes the vision and action of Alexander Hamilton. This namesake initiative--the Hamilton Project--led by some of America's brightest minds, is clear in its vision and bold in the action it promises.

Based on principles--not politics--the Hamilton Project recognizes that broad-based economic growth in America is stronger and more sustainable than growth that accrues to a small segment of the population. The Hamilton Project recognizes that our Nation can pursue economic security for American workers and economic growth simultaneously--and that both can be mutually reinforcing. The Hamilton Project recognizes that effective government plays a critical role in facilitating our Nation's prosperity and enhancing economic growth.

These principles inform four pillars of action: education and work, innovation and infrastructure, savings and insurance, and effective government. Under each pillar, the project promises innovative ideas and a clear blueprint to realize them. Already, the project has proposed reducing the skills gap of underprivileged school children and improving the effectiveness of our teachers. They have put forward clear proposals to boost savings in America and simplify taxes for the majority of Americans.

In the coming months, the Hamilton Project will continue to roll out specific policy proposals in each pillar. The project's work so far promises clear-eyed, detailed plans for our most pressing challenges. I look forward to evaluating each proposal. I recommend that my colleagues take the time to do the same.

Once again, I applaud those at the Hamilton Project for their initiative. Our challenges may be daunting, but we must all welcome the challenge.

Upon accepting his nomination as Treasury Secretary centuries ago, Hamilton understood the hugeness of his task, saying: ``I conceived myself to be under an obligation to lend my aid towards putting the machine in some regular motion.'' Let us follow his lead. And let us lend our aid, and keep this great machine in motion.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Executive Summary of the Hamilton Project's strategy paper.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Pharmacy Access Improvement Act of 2006.

The Medicare prescription drug benefit got off to a bumpy start. As the new benefit was rolled out, the program experienced problems related to its computer system and databases. A lot of those problems have been fixed. But a new computer program or new software could not fix a number of the problems that pharmacists faced.

The Medicare drug benefit made big changes to the pharmacy business. Transitioning dual eligible beneficiaries from Medicaid to Medicare drug coverage affected the pharmacists who provide drugs. And pharmacists have experienced problems dealing with the private drug plans that offer the new benefit.

I have been hearing from pharmacists in Montana who are struggling. They are trying to help their patients. But they face great difficulty. The success of the Medicare drug benefit ultimately depends on the pharmacists who deliver the drugs. So we have to help them. And we must act now, before pharmacists find that they are no longer able to provide drugs to Medicare beneficiaries, or to provide drugs at all.

This bill would provide the help that pharmacists need to continue delivering the Medicare drug benefit. It would resolve problems that they face every day as they provide Medicare beneficiaries with their drugs. It would help ensure that pharmacies remain open and operable so the drug benefit can be a meaningful part of beneficiaries' health care.

The Pharmacy Access Improvement Act would do several things to help pharmacies. First, it would strengthen the access standards that drug plans have to meet. It is important that the drug plans contract with broad and far-reaching networks of pharmacies. This bill would ensure that the pharmacies that drug plans count in their networks provide real access to Medicare beneficiaries.

It would also help safety net pharmacies to join drug plan networks. These pharmacies have served the most vulnerable patients for years. They should be able to continue to do so. Drug plans should not be allowed to exclude safety net pharmacies. Excluding them does a huge disservice to needy beneficiaries. This bill would rectify the problems that safety net pharmacies have encountered in participating in the Medicare drug benefit.

The Pharmacy Access Improvement Act would speed up reimbursement to pharmacies. The delay that pharmacies have experienced in receiving payment from drug plans has sent pharmacies all over the country into financial frenzy. These delays have forced pharmacies to seek additional credit, dip into their savings, or worse, as they try to continue operations. This bill would require drug plans to pay promptly. Most claims would be reimbursed within 2 weeks, making it easier for pharmacies to operate. And the bill would impose a monetary penalty on plans if they paid late.

One of the most common complaints from beneficiaries has been how confused they are. One source of their confusion comes from the practice of co-branding. Co-branding is when a drug plan partners with a pharmacy chain and then includes the pharmacy's logo or name on its marketing materials and identification cards. This is confusing, because it sends the message that drugs are available only from that pharmacy. And that is not true. To help end this confusion, the Pharmacy Access Improvement Act would prohibit drug plans from placing pharmacy logos or trademarks on their identification cards and restrict other forms of co-branding.

This bill would also require that pharmacists be paid reasonable dispensing fees for each prescription that they fill. Currently, some plans pay no dispensing fees. Other plans pay only nominal dispensing fees. Pharmacists are not able to cover their costs of dispensing drugs. And that puts them at a severe disadvantage. It eats up their margins from non-Medicare business. And it is unsustainable in the long-run.

Some would say that it is too soon to consider legislation that affects the Medicare drug benefit. I disagree. The problems that pharmacists are facing are real. And they are not going away. If we wait a year to consider the Pharmacy Access Improvement Act, it may be too late for many pharmacists and the beneficiaries whom they serve. We have a duty to make the Medicare drug benefit as strong and robust as it can be. And the Pharmacy Access Improvement Act presents an opportunity for us to do just that. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Medicare Prescription Drug Simplification Act of 2006. This bill would improve the Medicare drug benefit by creating simple, understandable benefit packages. It would

provide extra funds for State counselors who educate Medicare beneficiaries about the drug benefit. And it would strengthen consumer protections for beneficiaries who enroll.

Medicare drug benefits are critical to the health of our Nation's elderly and disabled. In 2003, after years of debate, Congress added drug coverage to Medicare through passage of the Medicare Modernization Act, the MMA. I was proud to help pass that bill. The law was not perfect. But, as I said then, we should not let perfection be the enemy of the good. The MMA can go a long way toward helping those who need it most.

But implementation of the law has been flawed. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, was put in charge of ensuring that the prescription drug benefit was fully operational by January 1, 2006. The task was big. And CMS worked hard to get it done. Unfortunately, CMS's efforts have come up short in a few major areas.

First, CMS made the new program needlessly confusing. The law charged CMS with approving prescription drug plans. Last April, I urged CMS to approve only the plans meeting the highest standards, so that seniors could choose among a manageable number of solid offerings. But CMS ignored that advice.

Instead, CMS approved 47 plans in my State alone, and more than 1,500 nationwide. Furthermore, the differences between the plans are mind- boggling and difficult to sort out, even for the most-savvy consumer. Beneficiaries deserve better. They must be able to make apples-to- apples comparisons in order to choose what is best for them.

There are other problems in the way that CMS chose to implement the new program. Consumer protections are weak and inconsistent. The list of drugs covered by plans should not change in the middle of the year. Plan formularies should be transparent. And patients should be able to request exceptions to them using the same process and forms, no matter which plans the patients enrolled in.

Also, CMS terribly underfunded State Health Insurance Programs, known as SHIPs. These agencies are mainly staffed by volunteers who help educate and advise people about Medicare and the new drug benefit. They have held thousands of community events and assisted millions of people across the country. But they struggled to meet demand for help with the new drug program. Last week, Montana AARP donated $40,000 of its own funds to help the Montana SHIP keep enough staff and volunteers through the May 15 deadline. CMS provided only $7,500 for a five-county region in Montana with an area bigger than Delaware. In contrast, CMS spent $300 million for an ad campaign, a bus tour, and a blimp.

Yet despite these ads, many seniors are still confused about the drug benefit. When I asked Montanans how they feel about the new program, they tell me that it is too complex and confusing.

Recent focus groups conducted by MedPAC, the group that advises Congress on Medicare policy, found the same the problem. According to MedPAC, beneficiaries are ``confused by the number of plans, variation in benefit structure.''

And a study released by the Kaiser Family Foundation says: ``the absence of any standardization for many features of drug plan benefit design, and even some of the basic terminology used to describe these plans, adds to the challenges for beneficiaries'' and ``is likely to make apples-to-apples comparisons across plans more difficult for consumers.'' The report ``confirm[ed] the importance of federal safeguards . . . to minimize unnecessary complexity in [the] Medicare prescription drug plan marketplace.''

The message is coming through loud and clear from constituents, researchers, advocacy groups, and government advisers. We need to make the Medicare drug benefit more understandable, straightforward, and transparent. And that's what this bill would do.

First, the bill would make choices among prescription drug plans more simple and straightforward. It would require the Federal Department of Health and Human Services to define six types of drug benefit packages that insurers could offer. In addition, Medicare and insurers would both have to use uniform language, names, and terminology to describe drug benefit packages. Seniors can reach informed decisions, but they deserve clear options.

This approach is similar to the one Congress took with the Medicare supplemental market. In 1980, Congress enacted the Baucus amendments to fix marketing abuses and consumer confusion with supplemental or Medigap plans.

Those reforms required private issuers to meet minimum standards and have minimum loss ratios. Ten years later, Congress again took up Medigap reform, passing legislation that led to the standardization of Medigap policies. This resulted in a limited number of Medigap options, each with a fixed set of benefits. These changes were successful in helping consumers to make comparisons and in strengthening consumer protections.

My colleague and co-sponsor, Senator Ron Wyden, was instrumental in bringing about these reforms. And I thank him for his involvement then and today.

The bill that we are introducing today would build on these lessons and apply them to the Medicare drug benefit. By establishing six standardized types of benefit packages that insurers can offer, the bill would help people to make apples-to-apples comparisons. It would make choices more understandable. It would reduce confusion and help beneficiaries make the decisions that are best for each individual. And it would do this while preserving the ability of insurers to compete in the marketplace.

Second, the bill would provide extra funds to State Health Insurance Programs through 2010. Putting information on the Internet, television, and a toll-free hotline is not enough.

Third, the bill would stop drug plans from removing medications or increasing drug costs during the benefit year.

Fourth, the bill would prohibit insurance agents from engaging in unfair marketing practices that prey on vulnerable people--practices like cold-calling seniors.

I believe strongly that Medicare beneficiaries need prescription drug coverage. And, if CMS implements it correctly, the market-based approach envisioned in the MMA can deliver those benefits effectively. But a market can work only if the product is well defined and consumers have sufficient knowledge of it. As Adam Smith said: ``[Value] is adjusted . . . not by any accurate measure, but by the haggling and bargaining of the market.'' It's not fair to expect seniors and people with disabilities to haggle and bargain if the choices are incomprehensible.

Some may say that lots of choice is good. This is true when people buy cars or toasters. But, as many economists have shown, the health care market is different. People want to choose their providers and pharmacies. But they do not necessarily want to wade through a confusing array of plans.

Some may say that we should hold off making changes until the market consolidates. But that is both unfair and unrealistic. With more than 1,500 plans in the market now, how much consolidation could really fix the problem of confusion and complexity? Furthermore, the next enrollment period is fast approaching, and consumers are insisting on relief now.

Some may say that enrollment is high, so why tinker with the benefit? But look at the numbers. In 2003, CMS said that they expected 19 million Americans to sign up for the drug program. But so far, only 8 million have voluntarily enrolled. In Montana, only 42 percent of people who have a choice about whether to sign up have done so. We can do better than that. And with passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug Simplification Act, we will.

The MMA tried to balance the needs of private plans and beneficiaries. But implementation has tilted that balance toward the private firms, rather than seniors and the disabled. The Medicare Prescription Drug Simplification Act of 2006 would restore the proper balance needed to make the drug program work fairly for people with Medicare.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Pharmacy Access Improvement Act of 2006.

The Medicare prescription drug benefit got off to a bumpy start. As the new benefit was rolled out, the program experienced problems related to its computer system and databases. A lot of those problems have been fixed. But a new computer program or new software could not fix a number of the problems that pharmacists faced.

The Medicare drug benefit made big changes to the pharmacy business. Transitioning dual eligible beneficiaries from Medicaid to Medicare drug coverage affected the pharmacists who provide drugs. And pharmacists have experienced problems dealing with the private drug plans that offer the new benefit.

I have been hearing from pharmacists in Montana who are struggling. They are trying to help their patients. But they face great difficulty. The success of the Medicare drug benefit ultimately depends on the pharmacists who deliver the drugs. So we have to help them. And we must act now, before pharmacists find that they are no longer able to provide drugs to Medicare beneficiaries, or to provide drugs at all.

This bill would provide the help that pharmacists need to continue delivering the Medicare drug benefit. It would resolve problems that they face every day as they provide Medicare beneficiaries with their drugs. It would help ensure that pharmacies remain open and operable so the drug benefit can be a meaningful part of beneficiaries' health care.

The Pharmacy Access Improvement Act would do several things to help pharmacies. First, it would strengthen the access standards that drug plans have to meet. It is important that the drug plans contract with broad and far-reaching networks of pharmacies. This bill would ensure that the pharmacies that drug plans count in their networks provide real access to Medicare beneficiaries.

It would also help safety net pharmacies to join drug plan networks. These pharmacies have served the most vulnerable patients for years. They should be able to continue to do so. Drug plans should not be allowed to exclude safety net pharmacies. Excluding them does a huge disservice to needy beneficiaries. This bill would rectify the problems that safety net pharmacies have encountered in participating in the Medicare drug benefit.

The Pharmacy Access Improvement Act would speed up reimbursement to pharmacies. The delay that pharmacies have experienced in receiving payment from drug plans has sent pharmacies all over the country into financial frenzy. These delays have forced pharmacies to seek additional credit, dip into their savings, or worse, as they try to continue operations. This bill would require drug plans to pay promptly. Most claims would be reimbursed within 2 weeks, making it easier for pharmacies to operate. And the bill would impose a monetary penalty on plans if they paid late.

One of the most common complaints from beneficiaries has been how confused they are. One source of their confusion comes from the practice of co-branding. Co-branding is when a drug plan partners with a pharmacy chain and then includes the pharmacy's logo or name on its marketing materials and identification cards. This is confusing, because it sends the message that drugs are available only from that pharmacy. And that is not true. To help end this confusion, the Pharmacy Access Improvement Act would prohibit drug plans from placing pharmacy logos or trademarks on their identification cards and restrict other forms of co-branding.

This bill would also require that pharmacists be paid reasonable dispensing fees for each prescription that they fill. Currently, some plans pay no dispensing fees. Other plans pay only nominal dispensing fees. Pharmacists are not able to cover their costs of dispensing drugs. And that puts them at a severe disadvantage. It eats up their margins from non-Medicare business. And it is unsustainable in the long-run.

Some would say that it is too soon to consider legislation that affects the Medicare drug benefit. I disagree. The problems that pharmacists are facing are real. And they are not going away. If we wait a year to consider the Pharmacy Access Improvement Act, it may be too late for many pharmacists and the beneficiaries whom they serve. We have a duty to make the Medicare drug benefit as strong and robust as it can be. And the Pharmacy Access Improvement Act presents an opportunity for us to do just that. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Medicare Prescription Drug Simplification Act of 2006. This bill would improve the Medicare drug benefit by creating simple, understandable benefit packages. It would

provide extra funds for State counselors who educate Medicare beneficiaries about the drug benefit. And it would strengthen consumer protections for beneficiaries who enroll.

Medicare drug benefits are critical to the health of our Nation's elderly and disabled. In 2003, after years of debate, Congress added drug coverage to Medicare through passage of the Medicare Modernization Act, the MMA. I was proud to help pass that bill. The law was not perfect. But, as I said then, we should not let perfection be the enemy of the good. The MMA can go a long way toward helping those who need it most.

But implementation of the law has been flawed. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, was put in charge of ensuring that the prescription drug benefit was fully operational by January 1, 2006. The task was big. And CMS worked hard to get it done. Unfortunately, CMS's efforts have come up short in a few major areas.

First, CMS made the new program needlessly confusing. The law charged CMS with approving prescription drug plans. Last April, I urged CMS to approve only the plans meeting the highest standards, so that seniors could choose among a manageable number of solid offerings. But CMS ignored that advice.

Instead, CMS approved 47 plans in my State alone, and more than 1,500 nationwide. Furthermore, the differences between the plans are mind- boggling and difficult to sort out, even for the most-savvy consumer. Beneficiaries deserve better. They must be able to make apples-to- apples comparisons in order to choose what is best for them.

There are other problems in the way that CMS chose to implement the new program. Consumer protections are weak and inconsistent. The list of drugs covered by plans should not change in the middle of the year. Plan formularies should be transparent. And patients should be able to request exceptions to them using the same process and forms, no matter which plans the patients enrolled in.

Also, CMS terribly underfunded State Health Insurance Programs, known as SHIPs. These agencies are mainly staffed by volunteers who help educate and advise people about Medicare and the new drug benefit. They have held thousands of community events and assisted millions of people across the country. But they struggled to meet demand for help with the new drug program. Last week, Montana AARP donated $40,000 of its own funds to help the Montana SHIP keep enough staff and volunteers through the May 15 deadline. CMS provided only $7,500 for a five-county region in Montana with an area bigger than Delaware. In contrast, CMS spent $300 million for an ad campaign, a bus tour, and a blimp.

Yet despite these ads, many seniors are still confused about the drug benefit. When I asked Montanans how they feel about the new program, they tell me that it is too complex and confusing.

Recent focus groups conducted by MedPAC, the group that advises Congress on Medicare policy, found the same the problem. According to MedPAC, beneficiaries are ``confused by the number of plans, variation in benefit structure.''

And a study released by the Kaiser Family Foundation says: ``the absence of any standardization for many features of drug plan benefit design, and even some of the basic terminology used to describe these plans, adds to the challenges for beneficiaries'' and ``is likely to make apples-to-apples comparisons across plans more difficult for consumers.'' The report ``confirm[ed] the importance of federal safeguards . . . to minimize unnecessary complexity in [the] Medicare prescription drug plan marketplace.''

The message is coming through loud and clear from constituents, researchers, advocacy groups, and government advisers. We need to make the Medicare drug benefit more understandable, straightforward, and transparent. And that's what this bill would do.

First, the bill would make choices among prescription drug plans more simple and straightforward. It would require the Federal Department of Health and Human Services to define six types of drug benefit packages that insurers could offer. In addition, Medicare and insurers would both have to use uniform language, names, and terminology to describe drug benefit packages. Seniors can reach informed decisions, but they deserve clear options.

This approach is similar to the one Congress took with the Medicare supplemental market. In 1980, Congress enacted the Baucus amendments to fix marketing abuses and consumer confusion with supplemental or Medigap plans.

Those reforms required private issuers to meet minimum standards and have minimum loss ratios. Ten years later, Congress again took up Medigap reform, passing legislation that led to the standardization of Medigap policies. This resulted in a limited number of Medigap options, each with a fixed set of benefits. These changes were successful in helping consumers to make comparisons and in strengthening consumer protections.

My colleague and co-sponsor, Senator Ron Wyden, was instrumental in bringing about these reforms. And I thank him for his involvement then and today.

The bill that we are introducing today would build on these lessons and apply them to the Medicare drug benefit. By establishing six standardized types of benefit packages that insurers can offer, the bill would help people to make apples-to-apples comparisons. It would make choices more understandable. It would reduce confusion and help beneficiaries make the decisions that are best for each individual. And it would do this while preserving the ability of insurers to compete in the marketplace.

Second, the bill would provide extra funds to State Health Insurance Programs through 2010. Putting information on the Internet, television, and a toll-free hotline is not enough.

Third, the bill would stop drug plans from removing medications or increasing drug costs during the benefit year.

Fourth, the bill would prohibit insurance agents from engaging in unfair marketing practices that prey on vulnerable people--practices like cold-calling seniors.

I believe strongly that Medicare beneficiaries need prescription drug coverage. And, if CMS implements it correctly, the market-based approach envisioned in the MMA can deliver those benefits effectively. But a market can work only if the product is well defined and consumers have sufficient knowledge of it. As Adam Smith said: ``[Value] is adjusted . . . not by any accurate measure, but by the haggling and bargaining of the market.'' It's not fair to expect seniors and people with disabilities to haggle and bargain if the choices are incomprehensible.

Some may say that lots of choice is good. This is true when people buy cars or toasters. But, as many economists have shown, the health care market is different. People want to choose their providers and pharmacies. But they do not necessarily want to wade through a confusing array of plans.

Some may say that we should hold off making changes until the market consolidates. But that is both unfair and unrealistic. With more than 1,500 plans in the market now, how much consolidation could really fix the problem of confusion and complexity? Furthermore, the next enrollment period is fast approaching, and consumers are insisting on relief now.

Some may say that enrollment is high, so why tinker with the benefit? But look at the numbers. In 2003, CMS said that they expected 19 million Americans to sign up for the drug program. But so far, only 8 million have voluntarily enrolled. In Montana, only 42 percent of people who have a choice about whether to sign up have done so. We can do better than that. And with passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug Simplification Act, we will.

The MMA tried to balance the needs of private plans and beneficiaries. But implementation has tilted that balance toward the private firms, rather than seniors and the disabled. The Medicare Prescription Drug Simplification Act of 2006 would restore the proper balance needed to make the drug program work fairly for people with Medicare.

Mr. President, in Montana, we have a long and proud athletic heritage, and the University of Montana men's basketball team has added yet another chapter to this great legacy.

The Griz finished their Cinderella season with a 24-to-7 record. Among their many great achievements this season was beating perennial basketball powerhouse Stanford, upsetting the top-seeded Northern Arizona Lumberjacks to win the Big Sky tournament, and shocking the No. 5 seeded Nevada Wolfpack in the first round of the NCAA tournament.

This truly was a magical season for our Griz. By advancing to the second round of the NCAA tournament, the Griz accomplished a feat no Griz team had in over 30 years. Yet this season was about more than just wins and losses, it was about a team that is a true class act-- both on and off the court.

This team's dedication to their school, their fans, their studies, and their community is a direct reflection of the man who leads them. Coach Larry Krystkowiak is truly the epitome of what it means to be a Montanan. Growing up in a small town, Coach ``K'' went on to play basketball at the University of Montana, where he

still holds the record for the most points and rebounds in a career. Once he completed his collegiate career, he went on to a successful career in the NBA.

After his retirement from professional basketball, Coach ``K'' moved to the other side of the bench and became an assistant coach. Eventually he found himself back home, as coach of the Griz. As head coach, Coach ``K'' instilled in his team that being a college athlete is about more than just playing a sport, it is about being a role model for a community. Nothing exemplifies this mentality more than when Coach ``K'' himself offered to have his head shaved in order to show support to a friend who had recently been diagnosed with cancer and to raise money for children who were battling the disease.

I want to take this opportunity to publicly congratulate each player on the roster, the coaching staff, Coach ``K'', and the entire University of Montana community for their magical season.

I ask that the list of coaches and team members be printed in the Record.

The information follows:

2005-2006 University of Montana Men's Basketball Team

Coaches: Larry Krystkowiak, Head Coach; Andy Hill; Brad

Huse; and Wayne Tinkle.

Players: Mike Chavez; Kevin Criswell; Matt Dlouhy; Bryan

Ellis; Jordan Hasquet; Matt Martin; Virgil Matthews; Stuart

Mayes; John Seyfert; Kyle Sharp; Greg Spurgetis; Andrew

Strait; Austin Swift; and Eric Van Vliet.

Madam President, I am speaking on an amendment I have offered to the debt limit. This amendment would simply require the Treasury Department to report on the economic and security implications of our debt to foreigners. Massive budget deficits are forcing America to borrow heavily. Last year, foreigners bought 96 percent of the Treasury bills that our Government sold to finance our debt--96 percent. That is an astounding statistic. The debt purchased last year, almost all of it, was purchased by foreigners, 96 percent.

Foreigners are becoming our bankers. America is becoming a debtor to foreign powers.

I think we need to understand this change. This amendment asks the Treasury to investigate what the full cost of our indebtedness will be, in higher interest rates, the value of a dollar, lower economic growth, less power to negotiate trade agreements, and diminished national security. We should let taxpayers know how big the cost of this foreign debt really is. This amendment will help to get the answers.

Some will make breathless arguments that passing this amendment will endanger the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. I say that is hogwash. If the Senate passes this amendment, the House of Representatives could pass it and have the bill on the President's desk before suppertime, on the President's desk this evening.

The real reason some are opposing this amendment is to save the House of Representatives from having to vote on the debt limit even once--to save the House of Representatives, to save those folks on the other side of the body, on the other side of the Capitol, from having to vote on the debt limit. That is really what is going on here. I think if Senators vote on the debt limit, certainly House Members should vote on the debt limit, too. That is an embarrassingly poor reason to vote against a study that would help protect America's economic and security interests.

Last year, foreigners bought 96 percent of the Treasury bills that our Government sold--actually 96 percent--just to remind everybody. I therefore urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment to help find out what our foreign debt really means for America.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, is there time to speak on the debt limit?

Mr. President, colleagues, this is deja vu all over again. This is the reconciliation cut bill of $11 billion which barely passed the House all over again. It is added on, on top of that again. That was a net $11 billion cut for Medicare and Medicaid in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance, and this is $11 billion yet on top of that. That will come out of you know whose hides. You know how unpopular that will be back home.

This is not the way to cut entitlement spending or put a limit on it. The better way is an all-encompassing way when everyone is in it together, not directed to the Committee on Finance jurisdiction which will cut more out of Medicaid, cut more spending out of Medicare.

I strongly urge my colleagues, just remember, this is deja vu all over again. It is a repeat of what happened last year. That was extremely unpopular.

Mr. President my colleagues are not being fooled. This is privatization of Social Security. Turn to page 29, paragraph 3. It so provides.

We have already gone down the road on privatization of Social Security.

The so-called surplus that the Senator referred to is just to privatize Social Security.

The American public said no to privatizing Social Security. The President has realized that it is a bad idea. The Congress should realize it. It is a bad idea. The AARP sure knows it is a bad idea. I have a letter from the AARP. Let me read from it. They say:

AARP strongly opposes this attempt to resurrect a proposal

that the American public has soundly rejected.

This is privatization of Social Security, pure and simple. The Senate should reject it as the American people have rejected it.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Oregon, to speak out against the administration's proposal to fund the Secure Rural Schools Program with a fire sale of our public land. It is vital to rural Montana and rural America that we reauthorize and fully fund the Secure Rural Schools Program, but we should not do it by putting a ``for sale'' sign on our prime hunting and fishing lands.

The administration's padlock proposal to sell public lands to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools Program sells rural America short. Montana and Oregon like many other States are outdoors States. We hunt. We fish. We take our kids hiking and camping. Our public lands are part of our recreational heritage as Americans. We should be increasing access for hunters and anglers, not putting more padlocks on more gates.

The administration's land grab proposal is bad for sportsmen, an it is bad for our schools. Back in 2000, I was proud to be a cosponsor of Senator Wyden and Senator Craig's secure rural schools bill. The Secure Rural Schools Act has given counties more money, more certainty, and more flexibility. I would call that a pretty good solution. We should not be abandoning 6 years of success. It is vital to our rural communities that we reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools Act, and I will fight tooth and nail with Senator Wyden to protect our public lands, reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools Act, and stop the administration's misguided land grab.

Mr. WYDEN, Mr. President, I am in full agreement with my friend and colleague from Montana. The idea to sell public lands to fund the secure rural schools reauthorization is a fundamentally flawed one. It pushes the debate over public lands and forestry back into the political briar patch despite the power of the legislation to bring traditional enemies together all across rural America in over 40 States and over 700 counties. It is because of the good work by my friend from Montana that this faulty idea is not assumed as part of this budget we debate today.

As Senator Baucus and I continue our exhaustive search in the next weeks for offsets to pay for the reauthorization of the county payments legislation, he and I will continue our work to defeat the ill- conceived and divisive idea of selling off public lands to pay for the continuation of such a collaborative and locally successful program. From his position as the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, on which I am privileged to serve with him, I feel sure that he will come up with the winning solution to offset the costs of reauthorizing this vital national program.

Mr. President, I regret that I was unable to vote in support of Senator Lieberman's amendment 3034 to the fiscal year 2007 congressional budget resolution. It is critically important to protect the American people from terrorist attacks. This amendment would have done so by providing $8 billion in additional funds for homeland security. These funds would have come from restoring cuts to vital first responder programs in the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice. It also would have provided an additional $1.2 billion for first responders, $1.7 billion for the Coast Guard and port security, $150 million for chemical security, $1 billion for rail and transit security, $456 million for FEMA, $1 billion for health preparedness programs, and $752 million for aviation security.

At the time of this vote I was meeting with a group of Montana's high school students from Project Close-Up. This program introduces young people to Washington, DC and to the U.S. Government. I believe it is very important to give these students the unique opportunity to meet with their State's Senators in person--it is a tradition I have maintained for years. It is unfortunate that this vote to support homeland security occurred at the same time as the visit. For this reason, I must make it clear that I firmly believe in properly funding homeland security. I was one of the first Senators to visit New Orleans and the gulf coast after Hurricane Katrina and I recognize that FEMA needs more funding to improve their mission and ability to properly respond to disasters.

Most importantly, our first responders in Montana are the backbone of emergency services in our State. We are a rural State, and our police and fire departments and hospitals call upon them to react across many miles to keep Montana's citizens safe. I have always voted in favor of these efforts in the past and I pledge to do so in the future.

Mr. President, on March 1, 2006 Evert Meiners of Billings, MT pled guilty to distributing child pornography over the Internet. A search of his computer by the FBI turned up more than 12,000 images of child pornography.

Mr. Meiners had the child pornography images on his website, which he operated from his home in Billings. But authorities across the world were able to access the pictures. Law enforcement in New York, Illinois, Maryland, and even Germany, reported that Mr. Meiners distributed and solicited pornographic images in their jurisdictions.

The Internet has proved to be a powerful tool for both good and evil. Criminals operating from around the world can now prey on children in our own backyards. We used to worry what could happen to our kids on their way home from school. Now parents have to worry about their kids even in the safety of their own homes.

Since 1995 the FBI has tracked down over 11,000 unique web addresses that solicit and market child pornography.

The danger posed by these graphic web sites to our children demands action. That is why I will introduce the ``Cyber Safety for Kids Act'' today. As a general matter the legislation seeks to create a zone for all sexually explicit material that parents can easily block their children from visiting.

Specifically, the bill would do the following: First, the Cyber Safety for Kids Act would require the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers to designate a top level domain name for web sites with sexually explicit materials harmful to minors. The domain name would be titled dot XXX, rather than dot Com.

Next, within six months of the launch of the .XXX domain name, all web sites that contain sexually explicit materials harmful to minors would be required to adopt the dot XXX domain name.

Finally, if a web site that contains sexually explicit material harmful to minors fails to use the dot XXX domain name, the web operator would be subject to civil penalties set by the Department of Commerce.

I know that some people believe that my legislation goes too far. Others believe that it does not go far enough. For example, some argue that all pornography over the Internet should be banned. That would certainly be effective, but would unquestionably be overturned by the Supreme Court. On numerous occasions, the Supreme Court has struck down laws that prohibit the broadcast of pornographic images.

On the other hand, I have heard from some that believe my legislation is too restrictive. I am a strong defender of the Constitution's protection of speech. But we cannot bury our heads in the sand and pretend that the problem of children viewing harmful material over the Internet will go away.

We must do what we can do to help parents protect their kids. My legislation aims to follow the successful efforts by States and localities to zone adult book and movie theaters in one part of a city or town.

In Renton v. Playtime Theaters the Supreme Court specifically upheld a city zoning ordinance that prohibited adult motion picture theaters from locating within 1,000 feet of any residential zone, single- or multiple-family dwelling, church, park, or school.

Likewise, my legislation creates a zone for all sexually explicit material that is harmful to minors on the Internet. Parents could easily install filters on their computer to keep their kids from visiting the dot XXX neighborhood.

There is no silver bullet that will stop sick adults from trafficking and

soliciting child pornography. But my legislation offers an important first step.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this legislation forward. I am also appreciative of Senator Pryor's leadership on this issue in the Commerce Committee. I am glad to say that Senator Pryor has agreed to be the lead co-sponsor of my legislation.

I urge Congress to support my legislation, and have it on the President's desk as soon as possible. American parents have asked for our help, it's our duty to act.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to make America more competitive by increasing savings. The bill encourages savings at work, and requires that the Government consider the Nation's savings in the budget process.

That great American philosopher Yogi Berra once said: ``If you see a fork in the road, take it.''

Well, we are at that fork in the road. Private savings are at an all time low. And the government just spoons out more and more red ink. If America does not change its ways, we will find ourselves on the wrong fork.

For the past 10 months, I have been talking about competitiveness. I have been talking about the steps that we must take to keep this country strong. And I have been talking about the steps that we must take to make it stronger.

One key component of my competitiveness agenda is savings. We must improve our national savings rate because capital is critical to growth. And continued deficits lead ultimately to a downward spiral.

The 2005 personal savings rate was negative--minus 0.5 percent. Taxpayers have joined their government in engaging in deficit spending. We have to turn our savings rates around. The question is how to do it.

With regard to Federal Government budget deficits, we have talked a lot over the last few days about the need for a pay-as-you-go process. We all know that it is important. The only question is whether we are willing to take the tough steps that pay-go requires, and not leave the burden to our children and grandchildren.

Pay-go does not necessarily mean tax increases. It could mean collecting the taxes that are already owed. The most recent IRS estimate of the tax gap--the difference between what taxpayers owe and what they pay on time--is $350 billion each year.

Collecting that difference would pay for a lot of the Government. Several times, the Senate has passed legislation that would close corporate loopholes and other abuses that contribute to the tax gap. Instead of looking for additional taxes, we should work with our Colleagues in the House to enact proposals like these that will simply get taxpayers to pay what they already owe.

Today, I want to focus on the lack of personal savings for retirement. We all know it is inadequate. And we must address this problem if American workers are to be able to retire with confidence that they can maintain their living standards.

The ``Savings Competitiveness Act,'' which I introduce today, will make it easier for millions of workers to save for retirement. It will create an automatic opportunity for workers to have savings withheld from their paychecks.

We cannot improve the personal savings rate by providing tax incentives that simply shift savings from one type of account to another, or from one investment to another. We can improve the personal savings rate only by creating new savings, especially savings by workers who would otherwise not save. I believe that this bill will do just that.

Data on retirement savings show that workers who can save at work through payroll deduction arrangements--such as 401(k) plans--usually take advantage of the opportunity to save. About two-thirds of eligible workers contribute to a 401(k) plan. That percentage jumps dramatically--to more than 80 percent--if eligible workers are automatically enrolled in these plans. Automatic enrollment makes saving the default. Workers can opt out. But those who do not opt out, start saving.

In November, we passed the pension bill by an overwhelming margin-- 97-to-2. That bill included provisions to encourage opt-out 401(k) and 403(b) plans, instead of opt-in plans. This is a very important first step. Separate bills introduced by Senators Bingaman and Snowe, and Senators Conrad and Smith were the basis for the Senate provisions. And I applaud their efforts to move these ideas along. Since the House also included automatic enrollment language in its bill, I expect that the final conference bill will take this dramatic step toward increasing savings.

That, however, is just a first step. Automatic enrollment in 401(k) and 403(b) plans will help only those who are eligible to join an employer-sponsored plan. That is about 60 percent of working Americans. Unfortunately, that leaves 40 percent of workers out in the cold. For small employers, the situation is worse. More than half of workers with small employers--those with fewer than 25 employees--have no employer- sponsored retirement plan. And for firms with fewer than 10 employees, only 16 percent of workers participate in an employer-sponsored plan.

Those who have no employer-sponsored retirement program are far less likely to save for retirement than those who do; 85 percent of workers eligible for an employer-sponsored plan are actually earning benefits in those plans. But less than 20 percent of eligible taxpayers contribute to an IRA.

Many more own IRAs--because funds from employer plans have been rolled over to an IRA. But the truth is, most retirement savings came from employer-based retirement plans.

The high participation rates in employer-sponsored 401(k) plans, and the

low rates for IRAs, leads to a clear conclusion. We can increase retirement savings--create new savings--by making payroll deduction retirement savings available to more workers.

This is not a new idea. President Clinton's USA accounts were one attempt to bring retirement savings to all working Americans. Senator Bingaman first proposed universal access to retirement savings in his Secure Retirement for America Act in the 107th Congress. But it is time that we stopped talking. It is time that we started doing something to change the direction of the personal savings rate.

Access to payroll savings is important, but it is not enough. The Savings Competitiveness Act that I introduce today will expand savings opportunities and more.

This bill helps workers by providing an opportunity to save for retirement through payroll deduction at work. Employers are not required to contribute. Employers just withhold contributions and forward them to an IRA. We provide a modest credit to help small employers with the start-up costs.

This bill helps children by allowing Young Saver's Accounts to be used for kid's savings.

This bill helps small employers who want to contribute toward employees' retirement savings get started with a 3-year start-up credit for 50 percent of contributions to workers who are not highly compensated. And small employers who use ``SIMPLE'' plans can share the profits in a good year by making discretionary contributions to employees' SIMPLE IRAs.

This bill helps lower-income taxpayers by replacing the current Saver's Credit with a refundable credit, deposited to the taxpayer's retirement savings account. Families earning up to $50,000 would be eligible for a 50 percent credit. Those earning up to $60,000 would be entitled to a portion of the credit. Low-income savers would not be penalized by losing eligibility for food stamps and other benefits.

This bill helps retirees with modest savings by exempting $50,000 of their savings from minimum distribution requirements.

This bill removes traps for the unwary by simplifying distribution rules. It would conform 401(k) and IRA penalties so that workers who do not have advisers to lead them through a series of hoops do not get hit with excise taxes that those with a guide can avoid.

This bill takes some of the guesswork out of choosing an IRA. It would create a seal of approval for IRAs that have investment options similar to those in the Thrift Savings Plan and modest fees.

The Senate's automatic enrollment provisions are not law yet. So I have also included them in this new legislation.

I encourage my Colleagues to join with me to provide workplace savings opportunities for working Americans that now have none and to stop the unlimited growth of the deficit by adopting a pay-as-you-go requirement. I ask you to support the Savings Competitiveness Act.