Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to talk about 8-year-old Jenessa Byers, known as ``Boey'' by her friends and family.

Last year, Boey was diagnosed with a very rare childhood cancer called rhabdomyosarcoma. Showing tremendous courage and strength as she underwent radiation and chemotherapy, Boey battled the cancer into remission. Unfortunately, that cancer returned and Boey is back in treatment undergoing radiation and chemotherapy once again.

While I was in Oregon over the recess, I had a chance to visit with Boey and her family at the Children's Cancer Center at Doernbecher Children's Hospital, as well as with other children at the hospital who are battling a variety of childhood cancers. Boey refers to herself as a warrior in the fight against cancer, and there is no doubt about it, Boey is a warrior. As I witnessed firsthand when I visited her last week, she is fighting the cancer as hard as she can. This in itself makes Boey a very brave and very special little girl.

But what makes her especially amazing is that in spite of what she is going through, Boey has been working tirelessly to help other children who are also battling cancer. Each month, she donates special bears and handmade cards titled ``Be Strong'' to other children at the hospital. The day before her eighth birthday last month, Boey participated as a survivor in the American Cancer Society's Relay for Life, for which she raised over $500. In addition, she has raised money to help fight cancer on a local radiothon, and she has raised awareness using her own videos, which she has posted on YouTube.

Because of Boey's incredible compassion and determination to help the other children fighting cancer, she was recently asked to be a spokesperson for Doernbecher Children's Hospital. On May 31, she spoke about her experiences at a reception for the Children's Miracle Network. Just this past weekend, she was featured in a segment of the Doernbecher Children's Miracle Network Telethon.

While I was visiting Boey, she asked me to cosponsor the Conquer Childhood Cancer Act. Introduced by Senators Reed and Coleman, this act would provide critical resources for the treatment, prevention, and cure of childhood cancer. The act would authorize $150 million over a 5-year period to expand support for biomedical research programs of the existing National Cancer Institute-designated multicenter national infrastructure for pediatric cancer research. It would also establish a population-based national childhood cancer registry; enable researchers to more accurately study the incidence of childhood cancers and long- term effects of treatments; and provide funding for informational and educational services to families coping with a diagnosis of childhood cancer. The Conquer Childhood Cancer Act brings hope to the more than 12,500 children who are diagnosed with cancer each year, as well as more than 40,000 children and adolescents currently being treated for childhood cancers.

On behalf of Boey and the other courageous and wonderful children I met at Doernbecher Children's Hospital recently, and every child with cancer, I would like to announce that I am cosponsoring the Conquer Childhood Cancer Act. I will be working with my colleagues to get this bill signed into law so that we can find a cure for childhood cancer once and for all.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by all Members of the Senate from the Northwest: Senator Gordon Smith, Senator Larry Craig, Senator Patty Murray, Senator Maria Cantwell, Senator Jon Tester, Senator Max Baucus and Senator Mike Crapo in introducing the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2007, or FRIMA. Our legislation extends a homegrown, commonsense program that has a proven track record in helping restore Northwestern salmon runs. Dollar-for-dollar, the fish screening and fish passage facilities funded by our legislation are among the most cost-effective uses of public and private restoration dollars. These projects protect fish while producing significant benefits. That is why it is important that this program be reauthorized and funding be appropriated now.

Since 2001, when the original Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000, FRIMA, was enacted, more than $9 million in Federal funds has leveraged nearly $20 million in private, local funding. This money has been used to protect, enhance and restore more than 550 rivers miles of important fish habitat and species throughout Oregon, Washington, Idaho and western Montana. For decades, State, tribal and Federal fishery agencies in the Pacific Northwest have identified the screening of irrigation and other water diversions, and improved fish passage, as critically important for the survival of salmon and other fish populations.

This program is very popular and has the support of a wide range of constituents, including community leaders, environmental organizations, and agricultural producers. Senator Smith and I are proud of the successful collaborative projects that irrigators and members of the Oregon Water Resources Congress have completed while putting this program to work in our home State. Our program also has the support of Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski, irrigators throughout the Northwestern States, Oregon Trout, American Rivers and the National Audubon Society.

FRIMA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program to plan, design, and construct fish screens, fish passage devices, and related features. It also authorizes inventories to provide the information needed for planning and making decisions about the survival and propagation of all Northwestern fish species. The program is currently carried out by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on behalf of the Interior Secretary.

FRIMA provides benefits by: keeping fish out of places where they should not be, such as in an irrigation system; easing upstream and downstream fish passage; improving the protection, survival, and restoration of native fish species; helping avoid new endangered species listings by protecting and enhancing the fish populations not yet listed; making progress toward the delisting of listed species; utilizing a positive, win/win, public-private partnership; and, assisting in achieving both sustainable agriculture and fisheries. Since FRIMA's enactment in 2001, 103 projects have been installed. This is a true partnership and fine example of how our fisheries and farmers can work together to protect fish species throughout the Northwest.

While he was Governor of Idaho, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said, ``. . . . the FRIMA program serves as an excellent example of government and private land owners working together to promote conservation. The screening of irrigation diversions plays a key role in Idaho's efforts to restore salmon populations while protecting rural economies.'' This is from ``Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Programs, fiscal year 2002-2004'', U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, July, 2005, page 13.

The bill that we are introducing today specifically extends the authorization for tbis program through 2014; gives priority to projects costing less than $2.5 million, a reduction in a targeted project's cost from $5,000,000 to $2,500,000; clarifies that any Bonneville Power Administration, BPA, funds provided either directly or through a grant to another entity shall be considered nonFederal matching funds, because BPA's funding comes from ratepayers; requires an inventory report describing funded projects and their benefits; and changes the administrative expenses formula used by the Fish & Wildlife Service and the States of Oregon, Washington, Montana and Idaho, so that administrative costs may be held to a minimum while projects in the field receive the majority of available funding.

Ultimately, it will take the combined efforts of all interests in our region to recover our salmon. State and local governments, local watershed councils, private landowners and the Federal Government need to continue working together. Initiatives such as the bill I am introducing today help to sustain the partnerships upon which successful salmon recovery will be based.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to see this legislation pass.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by all Members of the Senate from the Northwest: Senator Gordon Smith, Senator Larry Craig, Senator Patty Murray, Senator Maria Cantwell, Senator Jon Tester, Senator Max Baucus and Senator Mike Crapo in introducing the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2007, or FRIMA. Our legislation extends a homegrown, commonsense program that has a proven track record in helping restore Northwestern salmon runs. Dollar-for-dollar, the fish screening and fish passage facilities funded by our legislation are among the most cost-effective uses of public and private restoration dollars. These projects protect fish while producing significant benefits. That is why it is important that this program be reauthorized and funding be appropriated now.

Since 2001, when the original Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000, FRIMA, was enacted, more than $9 million in Federal funds has leveraged nearly $20 million in private, local funding. This money has been used to protect, enhance and restore more than 550 rivers miles of important fish habitat and species throughout Oregon, Washington, Idaho and western Montana. For decades, State, tribal and Federal fishery agencies in the Pacific Northwest have identified the screening of irrigation and other water diversions, and improved fish passage, as critically important for the survival of salmon and other fish populations.

This program is very popular and has the support of a wide range of constituents, including community leaders, environmental organizations, and agricultural producers. Senator Smith and I are proud of the successful collaborative projects that irrigators and members of the Oregon Water Resources Congress have completed while putting this program to work in our home State. Our program also has the support of Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski, irrigators throughout the Northwestern States, Oregon Trout, American Rivers and the National Audubon Society.

FRIMA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program to plan, design, and construct fish screens, fish passage devices, and related features. It also authorizes inventories to provide the information needed for planning and making decisions about the survival and propagation of all Northwestern fish species. The program is currently carried out by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on behalf of the Interior Secretary.

FRIMA provides benefits by: keeping fish out of places where they should not be, such as in an irrigation system; easing upstream and downstream fish passage; improving the protection, survival, and restoration of native fish species; helping avoid new endangered species listings by protecting and enhancing the fish populations not yet listed; making progress toward the delisting of listed species; utilizing a positive, win/win, public-private partnership; and, assisting in achieving both sustainable agriculture and fisheries. Since FRIMA's enactment in 2001, 103 projects have been installed. This is a true partnership and fine example of how our fisheries and farmers can work together to protect fish species throughout the Northwest.

While he was Governor of Idaho, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said, ``. . . . the FRIMA program serves as an excellent example of government and private land owners working together to promote conservation. The screening of irrigation diversions plays a key role in Idaho's efforts to restore salmon populations while protecting rural economies.'' This is from ``Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Programs, fiscal year 2002-2004'', U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, July, 2005, page 13.

The bill that we are introducing today specifically extends the authorization for tbis program through 2014; gives priority to projects costing less than $2.5 million, a reduction in a targeted project's cost from $5,000,000 to $2,500,000; clarifies that any Bonneville Power Administration, BPA, funds provided either directly or through a grant to another entity shall be considered nonFederal matching funds, because BPA's funding comes from ratepayers; requires an inventory report describing funded projects and their benefits; and changes the administrative expenses formula used by the Fish & Wildlife Service and the States of Oregon, Washington, Montana and Idaho, so that administrative costs may be held to a minimum while projects in the field receive the majority of available funding.

Ultimately, it will take the combined efforts of all interests in our region to recover our salmon. State and local governments, local watershed councils, private landowners and the Federal Government need to continue working together. Initiatives such as the bill I am introducing today help to sustain the partnerships upon which successful salmon recovery will be based.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to see this legislation pass.

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

If I can ask the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, how long does the senior Senator from New Mexico anticipate talking?

I was going to take 10 minutes. I would enjoy listening to the Senator from New Mexico. Whatever his pleasure.

Madam President, I thank the chairman for his comments and would just say I think the Conrad budget goes a long way to restoring fiscal sanity in the Federal Government, but also allows for an opportunity for the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, to get behind two fixes to the critical domestic issues of our time, and those are health care and taxes.

I think if you listen to the technical lingo over the course of the debate--and the Senator from Missouri, now the Presiding Officer of the Senate, comes from the campaign trail, and we are glad to have her because she has just been through the debate in her State--the people in Missouri or in my State of Oregon do not talk about pay-go and fire walls and reserve funds and that kind of technical Washington lingo. They do talk an awful lot about what is going to be done to fix health care and what is going to be done to fix taxes.

One of the reasons I am so supportive of this Conrad budget is, it really does lay the foundation for the Congress to get serious about tax reform and serious about health reform. One of the areas Chairman Conrad has zeroed in on as it relates to taxes, for example, has been this problem of tax havens and tax scams. There is an opportunity as a result of this budget to come together in a bipartisan way and fix the taxes. If you are serious about closing the tax gap, the hundreds of billions of dollars that we can't collect--and Chairman Conrad and Chairman Baucus have been working hard to try to approve measures to make it easier to collect that money--you have to fix the tax system and simplify it.

I have offered a proposal, the fair flat tax, that would allow for just that kind of effort. Others here in the Senate have ideas as it relates to tax reform. The point is, the Conrad budget makes it possible for the Senate to come together on the tax issue and fix this code.

Chairman Conrad has talked about the scams. He has talked about the tax

havens and about the hundreds of billions of dollars we are losing. I have a proposal, the Fair Flat Tax Act, that would deal with it. There are other proposals in the Senate that would beef up the collection of these billions of dollars that are lost in the tax gap. The Conrad budget lays the foundation for tax reform.

I would say to my colleagues, we have had more than 14,000 changes in the Tax Code in recent years. It comes out to three changes in the Tax Code for every working day, three for every single working day. The tax system is broken in this country. We are laying the foundation in this proposal for a tax system based on simplicity: a one-page 1040 form and progressivity, where we are fair to those who are vulnerable in our society, but also reform that is sensitive to the question of holding down rates for all so that everyone would have a chance to get ahead.

In addition to taxes, which I think the Conrad budget deals with in a responsible fashion, the legislation allows for a bipartisan effort in this Congress to fix American health care, with a reserve fund that is established and would allow for bipartisan health reform efforts. Senator Bennett of Utah and I are offering the first bipartisan effort in 13 years to fix American health care. Everybody would be covered, which is essential, because if you don't cover everybody, those who are uninsured shift their bills to those who are insured. We also fix the broken private marketplace.

Right now, we have an awful lot of insurance companies that cherry- pick, that take just healthy people and send sick people over to government programs more fragile than they are. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars through the Federal Tax Code disproportionately rewarding the most affluent in our country and also promoting inefficiency. Senator Bennett and I are very hopeful that this year, not in 2009, not after the next Presidential election but this year, the Senate will come together on a bipartisan basis. We have the Healthy Americans Act, other Senators have other proposals, but the Conrad budget lays the foundation for fixing health care in this session of Congress.

I also believe as a result of the letter that 10 Senators sent--5 Democrats and 5 Republicans--to the President, indicating that we want to work in a bipartisan way, that if this budget passes, and if the White House will join the effort that Senator Bennett and I are advocating in the Healthy Americans Act and the 10 Senators have outlined in their letter to the President--which very much mirrors what Senator Bennett and I are talking about--we can get action on health care in 2007.

Finally--and I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the Senator from New Mexico in allowing me to speak before him--let me mention that Senator Conrad has included in his budget a provision that is critical to the survival of timber-dependent communities in my State and around the country. His budget includes a reserve fund to provide for extension of the Secure Rural Schools Act, also known as the county payments program. This law provides funding for schools, roads, and other essential services in hundreds of resource-dependent communities around the country. This is a survival issue for many in rural America. Without county payments, rural communities around this country are telling us they are going to vanish from the map. These communities, in my view, should not be turned into sacrifice zones.

I am hopeful the extension of the county payments law will be addressed during the conference on the emergency supplemental spending bill. Earlier this year, 74 Senators voted to include an extension of the county payments program, and we were very pleased to have the support of Senator Domenici, who has been involved in this discussion and also the additional program, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program, which we have included in this legislation.

We have spoken to the majority leader, Senator Reid, who has assured me he will do everything in his power to include county payments when the new version of the supplemental spending bill comes out of conference. If that doesn't happen, we are going to make this an effort on every single vehicle in this Congress. Our bipartisan group is going to try to get this support for county payments legislation done as soon as possible.

We believe it ought to be done along the lines of what 74 Senators have already voted for, and it ought to be done in the supplemental spending bill that is going into conference. But if it doesn't happen, we are going to try to make it happen on every single vehicle that comes before the Senate because of its extraordinary importance to our communities.

I thank Chairman Conrad for making the inclusion of a county payments reserve fund in the budget so as to provide a backstop so that there would be another option to extend county payments quickly, if for some reason it doesn't happen in the budget.

In closing, I would urge colleagues to support this budget, especially because of the foundation it lays to tackle the two biggest domestic issues of our time, health care and taxes. There are certainly major issues that come before us, with Iraq obviously being the issue of paramount importance as it relates to the international front, but the big issues at home are fixing health care and taxes. The Conrad budget allows Democrats and Republicans to come together on both of those.

This is a budget that responsibly allows the Senate to address the critical issues, do so in a responsible way, and I urge the passage of this budget.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, those of us entrusted to represent our States in the Senate are so unbelievably fortunate thanks to the wonderful people we meet and work with along the way. These encounters remind us on a regular basis of the inherent goodness of

so many folks, and of their dedication to making our communities, our Nation and our world a better place in which to live and raise families. Today I pay tribute to one such person--a very special person--I was blessed to have met along the way.

Del Greenfield, who passed away just last month, was an extraordinary wife, mother, and citizen whose uncommon commitment to humankind and peace touched thousands of people and enriched our world in ways that will ripple across generations for as long as we humans will inhabit this Earth.

I met Del and her husband, Lou, long ago when I was running the Grey Panthers in Oregon. She was a well-known political activist and worked for some outstanding public servants, including Governor Bob Straub and my former colleague, Congressman Les AuCoin. In the early eighties, Del began to lead the Portland chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility, and it was there that she made a profound and unforgettable impression on so many government leaders who played a role in deciding matters of war and peace, equality and inequality, justice and injustice.

She was well known to those of us in public office for several reasons. We all came to respect her tremendous command of grassroots politics. She harbored an unflinching belief in the power of people to effect change, and she was quite skillful at organizing her troops and using the strength of the many to overcome the sometimes unnatural advantages of the most fortunate few.

She was also unforgettable because of her unyielding, boundless passion for her beliefs and her mission. Del was full of praise for us when she approved of what we were up to--and thankfully, that was most of the time with me--but she never, ever gave up when we took an action she disagreed with. Even when that disagreement had long passed, Del continued to view those disappointments as potential teachable moments, as opportunities for our growth. On those occasions, Del could chew on you pretty good, but if she liked you, she always did it with a smile on her lips and a twinkle in her eyes. She frequently forgave, but she never forgot.

And, importantly, and this was perhaps the root of her high standing with all of us, there was never any doubt about Del's motives. If she possessed any ego, I never encountered it. The one thing I always knew about Del, even on those rare occasions where we disagreed, was that it was never about her. She was inherently decent and kind and involved in all of her causes for all the right reasons.

I am so proud to have had Del and Lou as two of my earliest supporters and am so honored to have had the opportunity to work with and learn from such a wonderful, powerful woman. She and Lou leave to us all a legacy of hope and goodness that will be carried on for generations to come by her wonderful children, their grandchildren, their great grandchildren, and the thousands of others who have been touched by their loving, good works.

Because I know she is still watching me closely, and because I know she could care less about how many nice things I have to say about her, Del, I will think of you every opportunity I get to end this misguided war in Iraq. And I will think of you every time I have an opportunity to bring about lasting peace, justice, and equality. Your lessons and love will never be forgotten.

Mr. President, today, I come back to the floor to introduce legislation to keep the Internet free of discrimination. For over a decade, people have tried to get their grubby hands all over the Internet and I have sprung into action to stop them. I have fought hard to prevent discrimination in the taxation of Internet commerce. I have fought hard to prevent discrimination on the content and applications layer of the Internet. Now, I am back here one more time, to prevent discriminatory treatment against Internet radio companies and consumers of their product in how copyright royalties are collected.

Make no bones about it, the recent decision on copyright royalty fees by the Copyright Royalty Board is discrimination. The fees that webcasters will have to pay will discriminate in favor of traditional radio broadcasting and satellite radio broadcasting, which pay a much lower percentage of their revenues in royalties.

The decision of the Copyright Royalty Board would increase royalties on webcasters to levels between 300 and 1200 percent of their current royalty fees. For most webcasters, the royalties will exceed their gross revenues. There are not many people who are going to stay in business long when their costs exceed their revenues. This is certainly the case for webcasters. That is why I am introducing the Internet Radio Equality Act today.

The Bipartisan Internet Radio Equality Act, that I am introducing today with my friend from Kansas, Senator Brownback, will prevent this discrimination. It does so by invalidating the decision of the Copyright Royalty Board and instead puts Internet radio on par with Satellite Radio, jukeboxes, and cable radio. Additionally, it has special protections in place for noncommercial webcasters, like National Public Radio and college radio, to ensure that they can take advantage of webcasting as well.

Unfortunately, time is of the essence in saving Internet radio. On July 15, if Congress does not intervene, collection of these new royalty fees will begin. It is no coincidence that on the same day, if Congress does not intervene, that hundreds of thousands of Internet radio stations will be turned off for good. It is imperative that we act within the next 2 months to prevent this from happening.

I want to thank my friend from Kansas, Senator Brownback, for joining me in introducing this important legislation. I look forward to working with him and Congressman Inslee, my friend from Washington, who has introduced companion legislation in the House, to get the job done.

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

Mr. President, today, I come back to the floor to introduce legislation to keep the Internet free of discrimination. For over a decade, people have tried to get their grubby hands all over the Internet and I have sprung into action to stop them. I have fought hard to prevent discrimination in the taxation of Internet commerce. I have fought hard to prevent discrimination on the content and applications layer of the Internet. Now, I am back here one more time, to prevent discriminatory treatment against Internet radio companies and consumers of their product in how copyright royalties are collected.

Make no bones about it, the recent decision on copyright royalty fees by the Copyright Royalty Board is discrimination. The fees that webcasters will have to pay will discriminate in favor of traditional radio broadcasting and satellite radio broadcasting, which pay a much lower percentage of their revenues in royalties.

The decision of the Copyright Royalty Board would increase royalties on webcasters to levels between 300 and 1200 percent of their current royalty fees. For most webcasters, the royalties will exceed their gross revenues. There are not many people who are going to stay in business long when their costs exceed their revenues. This is certainly the case for webcasters. That is why I am introducing the Internet Radio Equality Act today.

The Bipartisan Internet Radio Equality Act, that I am introducing today with my friend from Kansas, Senator Brownback, will prevent this discrimination. It does so by invalidating the decision of the Copyright Royalty Board and instead puts Internet radio on par with Satellite Radio, jukeboxes, and cable radio. Additionally, it has special protections in place for noncommercial webcasters, like National Public Radio and college radio, to ensure that they can take advantage of webcasting as well.

Unfortunately, time is of the essence in saving Internet radio. On July 15, if Congress does not intervene, collection of these new royalty fees will begin. It is no coincidence that on the same day, if Congress does not intervene, that hundreds of thousands of Internet radio stations will be turned off for good. It is imperative that we act within the next 2 months to prevent this from happening.

I want to thank my friend from Kansas, Senator Brownback, for joining me in introducing this important legislation. I look forward to working with him and Congressman Inslee, my friend from Washington, who has introduced companion legislation in the House, to get the job done.

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

Mr. President, our friend and colleague, Senator Bennett, and I have joined together in the first bipartisan legislation to guarantee quality, affordable health care for all Americans in more than a decade. I could have no better partner to deal with the premier issue here at home than Senator Bennett, who, of course, is a senior Member of the Senate Republican leadership and widely respected on both sides of the aisle. In the days ahead, together, we are going to be talking with Senators of both parties and discussing this legislation on the floor with one specific goal in mind; that is, Senate action to fix health care in America in 2007.

Now, of course, the popular wisdom is that something like this simply could never, ever be done. All the Washington, DC, beltway pundits say fixing health care is something we can't do right now and that it will be the job for the next President and the next Congress and everybody ought to expect that maybe 2 years from now, in the spring of 2009, Congress will get around to dealing with the principal domestic issue of our time.

I and Senator Bennett don't believe we were given election certificates to sit around for 2 more years, when the American people are saying they cannot afford for the Congress to wait on fixing health care. It is the top issue here at home. It has been studied, studied, and studied. It has been poked and prodded for an awfully long time. It is time for the Senate to act and act now.

Our citizens are staying up late worrying about how they are going to be able to afford quality health care. I don't see how Members of Congress can explain going home at night without addressing our citizens' concerns, and say we will talk about this again in a couple of years. The country wants action, and Senator Bennett and I are going to do everything we can to make sure they get it.

Yesterday, the CEOs of five major companies joined our push for action on health care this year. They focused on a handful of important principles. The principles pretty much mirror the Healthy Americans Act. I am very pleased the CEOs yesterday joined those who have already come out in support of the Healthy Americans Act: the business leaders, the labor leaders, the public health advocates, the advocates for consumers, and those who want to have dignity for folks at the end of life. They have already come out in support of the Healthy Americans Act, and I was very glad to be able to join the CEOs with Senator Bennett yesterday to talk about why it is important for Congress to act and to act now.

The Healthy Americans Act is based on a handful of key principles. The first is that if you are going to fix health care, you have to cover everybody. If you don't cover everybody, what happens in American health care is that those who are uninsured shift their costs to those who are insured. So all the people who have private policies end up picking up the costs of those who are uninsured.

Second, we believe we ought to build universal coverage around private choices, while protecting current Government programs. Our legislation, for example, keeps in place the basic structure of Medicare and veterans programs, making improvements in Medicare; for example, creating incentives for prevention, particularly under Part B, what is called the outpatient portion of the program. We build the future of American health care around quality, affordable private choices, while protecting current Government programs.

The third area we address is fixing the Tax Code. We have 180 million people essentially getting health care in America by a historical accident. Back in the 1940s, there were wage and price controls. It wasn't possible to get quality affordable health care to our citizens, and it was essentially put on the backs of the employers. Then the Tax Code came along to support that decision. Now, more than $200 billion goes out the door in a way that disproportionately favors the most affluent and also promotes inefficiency. If you are a high-flying CEO, you can go out and get a designer smile and write it all off on your tax bill, but if you are a hard-working woman in a furniture store, you get virtually nothing out of the Tax Code. So Senator Bennett and I think it is time to fix something in the Tax Code that might have made sense 65 years ago but certainly doesn't make sense today.

Then, we propose to cut the link between employers and insurance. There is no reason why we ought to say--at a time when our citizens change their job something like seven times by the time someone is 35, and we live in a society where people want portability, the ability to move quickly from job to job and take their benefits with them--there is no reason to say the future of American health care ought to require the employer to continue to be the focus of how health care is delivered. Certainly, at a time when our employers are up against global competition--and not competing with somebody in Denver or Texas but in global markets--it makes no sense to dump all this onto the back of the employer. So Senator Bennett and I would cut the link between health insurance and employment.

We have put a special emphasis on creating a new culture of wellness and, in a sense, dealing with the fact that America doesn't have health care at all. What we have is ``sick'' care. Medicare will spend thousands of dollars under Part A for senior citizens' hospital bills and virtually nothing under Part B for prevention to keep people well. So we make those voluntary incentives part of Medicare so that if a senior, for example, in Montana were to lower her blood pressure or her cholesterol for the first time, that senior in Montana would be able to get a lower Part B premium and actually see, on a voluntary basis, why good health pays off in terms of the premium costs seniors face.

Finally, our judgment is we are spending enough money today on health care. We are not spending it in the right places. To put it into perspective, this year we are going to spend $2.3 trillion on health care. There are about 300 million of us. If you divide 300 million into $2.3 trillion, you could go out and hire a personal physician for every seven families in America and pay that doctor $200,000 a year, and then we would all have quality, affordable health care. Picture that in the State of Montana or in another part of our country: Seven families, for the amount of money we are spending today, could have their own personal physician who would get paid $200,000, and their job would be to take care of seven families. Whenever I bring that up to the physicians groups--I am sure my colleague from Montana would see this as well--whenever I bring it up to physicians, they say: Ron, where do I go to get my seven families? It sounds pretty good. It would be pretty good to be able to practice medicine again today rather than being a bean counter and an administrator and somebody who has to shuffle through all the paper and bureaucracy.

We are spending enough; we are not spending it in the right places. So that is why we have to say the first thing we are going to do is spend what is being allocated by American health care today more wisely.

The Lewin Group is sort of the gold standard of doing health care analyses. They analyzed the Healthy Americans Act and the President's proposals and proposals from various States, and they have found that under the legislation that Senator Bennett and I are working on in the Senate, it would be possible to save $1.45 trillion--that is with a T-- on health care spending in the years ahead, the first proposal to actually lower the rate of growth in health spending. So the facts are indisputable. People who are insured today--and you often ask why should they support changes--are picking up the bills of those who are uninsured. As Senator Bennett has often said, we have universal coverage already today. That is the way it works. Those people are going to get care; it is just not going to be done in a very efficient fashion.

So the facts are not in question. Medical costs are gobbling up everything in sight. Our employers are at a disadvantage when it comes to U.S. competitiveness. There has been a huge increase in chronic illness. A tiny percentage of the Medicare population, for

example, consumes most of the Medicare dollars, essentially as a result of problems relating to heart disease and diabetes and a host of other illnesses that could be prevented. Of course, it is well understood by every Senator that there is a demographic avalanche coming with many more older people.

So with the facts not in dispute, with the country saying act now, don't put this off for another 2 years, the Senate has an opportunity to work in a bipartisan way.

Senators on my side of the aisle have made it clear--correctly in my view--that we have to get everybody covered. It is not right for this country to be the only western industrialized nation that cannot figure out how to get everybody under the tent. It is important to get everybody covered.

Senator Bennett and others on the Republican side of the aisle have been correct in saying the public doesn't feel comfortable with the idea of having Government run it all. The people in my State voted against what is known as a ``single payer plan'' in 2002 by a 3-to-1 majority.

What Senator Bennett and I have put together, for the amount of money that is being spent today, is a bill that will save close to $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. It is legislation you can explain at any townhall meeting in Montana, Oregon, or anywhere else, and that is that every citizen would have access to a private health policy at least as good as their Member of Congress has. It is very simple to understand.

I have a Blue Cross card in my pocket. I was able, during the period of open enrollment, which the Senator from Montana experienced when he came to the Senate, to make choices, make an evaluation of the various private health policies that were offered to me. As a result, my children and I have that private health coverage. I want that same set of choices and set of opportunities for those whom I represent and the people of this country.

My good friend Senator Bennett has joined me on the floor. I am going to yield soon for him to speak.

I think the debate in the Senate has reached the critical moment, at least for this session of Congress. We know we have to get action on major issues in 2007. We are going to spend a lot of time next year electing a new President. You probably don't have to have the President actually sign a piece of legislation in 2007, but you have to get serious action. Senator Bennett and I believe there is an opportunity today that we have not had in years and years, and that is to bring Democrats and Republicans together to work for universal coverage.

My friend Senator Bennett has made the point very eloquently that we are already paying for it today. We are just not, in many respects, getting our money's worth. So we have spent a great deal of time listening to folks in the private sector, in business, and labor, and Government, Democrats and Republicans, and we want to bring the Senate together.

I also point out that the Healthy Americans Act, which Senator Bennett has agreed to be the lead Republican sponsor on, mirrors the letter that 10 Senators--5 Democrats and 5 Republicans--sent to the President earlier this year, indicating we want to work with him. Health care has been studied and studied. The time for action is now. I am very pleased my good friend Senator Bennett is going to be joining me in this effort.

I repeat to the Senate, this is the first time in more than a decade there has actually been a bipartisan piece of legislation to provide for universal health coverage in America. The last one, in fact, was largely developed by the late Senator Chafee, who sought to do much of what Senator Bennett and I are seeking to do.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I believe we have about 13 additional minutes to go. The distinguished Senator from Utah has given a superb description of the history and why it is time to break with 60 years of policy. I would like to, because the distinguished Senator was there during the last effort, the 1993-1994 debate, get his sense about how the approach that we have been talking about--linking together universal coverage with these private choices that individuals would make--is it the Senator's judgment that had that been done in 1993 and 1994 with the efforts of Senator Chafee, himself, and others that we might well have been able to pass legislation right then, 15 years ago, had we taken this approach?

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's comments.

The other area I have picked up over the last 15 years where there has been dramatic interest and is an opportunity for bipartisanship-- and I have heard the Senator from Utah talk about it--is this area of prevention. We know with the Medicare Program that something like 4 percent of those on Medicare consume over half the dollars because we are seeing so much of the health care money go to treatment of what are often preventable illnesses--heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and others.

What we have tried to do in the Healthy Americans Act is to create some incentives for families and prevention, and, for example, if parents took a youngster to a wellness program--they wouldn't be required to do it, although we know it makes sense--the parents would be eligible for a discount on the parents' premium, again using these voluntary incentives.

What is the Senator's sense for the opportunities for prevention? I have

been struck by some of what the Senator from Utah has said about prevention in the past.

I close, Mr. President--and the Senator has been very gracious to do this with me this morning--with why it would be important to have a bipartisan initiative now. As we have discussed, the conventional thinking is that the Congress can't deal with something such as this now; that this will be for the next President. But I think the two of us would very much like to bring the Senate together behind what the country wants to do today, which is to fix health care.

I have always gotten the sense that when you have divided Government--the President of one party, the Congress of another--that is the ideal time to try to bring the Congress together to tackle a big issue, and there is nothing bigger than health care at home. I think it would be appropriate.

I appreciate the Senator from Utah for coming and for his support, to hear his thoughts on bringing the Congress together and the country together to finally deal with an issue where there has been so much polarization in the past.

I thank my colleague from Utah. I see other Senators who are wishing to speak. We will be back to talk with Senators about this issue, to urge action in 2007, to support a bipartisan push in the Senate to deal with the premier domestic issue of our time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I have placed a hold on the nomination of R. Lyle Laverty to be Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks at the U.S. Interior Department. Consistent with my policy of publicly announcing whenever I place a hold on a nomination, I want to notify my colleagues of my objection to allowing Mr. Laverty's nomination to be considered under a unanimous-consent agreement. and to take a few minutes to explain to my colleagues why I am doing so.

The Interior Department has suffered no shortage of scandals in recent years. To name just two of the most egregious: Its former No. 2 official, a Deputy Interior Secretary who previously had been a coal industry lobbyist, pleaded guilty earlier this year to felony obstruction of justice for lying about his relationship with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. And we discovered that the Minerals Management Service, an agency within the Interior Department, has known for years about flawed drilling leases that allow companies to pay no royalties on valuable oil and gas they take from Federal land in the Gulf of Mexico, but the MMS did nothing until news reports brought the facts to the public last year. Indeed, the MMS has silenced auditors on its staff who tried to blow the whistle on companies not paying their fair share.

``Simply stated, short of a crime, anything goes at the highest levels of the Interior Department,'' the Interior Department's inspector general has warned us.

Last year, when Dirk Kempthorne was nominated to be Secretary of the Interior and he appeared before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee for confirmation, I secured from him a pledge. He told me that he would reform that troubled department and introduce a higher ethical standard. The scandals would stop coming.

However, in late March, the inspector general once again released a scathingly critical report warning us about bad things happening at the Interior Department. This time the subject was Julie MacDonald, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Mr. Laverty would be the immediate supervisor of the position Ms. MacDonald held.

In detail, the inspector general told us two things about Ms. MacDonald. One, she violated Federal rules by leaking internal Fish and Wildlife Service records to business groups actively challenging the Government's environmental rulemaking process. In the process, she has been undermining her own agency's cases in court. Two, without any formal education in the natural sciences, she has bullied and threatened FWS scientists and forced changes in their reports to suit her own political and personal agendas. FWS attorneys no longer will sign off on reports if they know the reports passed through her hands because they no longer are certain of the accuracy.

This sort of conduct is simply unacceptable. If you agree to work in the Interior Department, your loyalty should be with the Interior Department and protecting this country's natural treasures. Ms. MacDonald's loyalty lay elsewhere.

The inspector general sent his report on Ms. MacDonald to the Interior Department for administrative action more than a month ago. The Interior Department had no public comment. Only after I announced that I would place a hold on Mr. Laverty's nomination did Ms. MacDonald resign. That removes her from the equation, but not the atmosphere that allowed her to operate as she did for so long.

In case I wasn't perfectly clear last year at his confirmation hearing, I want to be sure that Secretary Kempthorne knows that I am serious. The Interior Department has been a source of shame to this government for too long. It is failing in its mission to protect the public land and balance the needs of the American people with wisdom and integrity. It has stumbled from one misstep to another, from one scandal to another, and I have to question who is in charge over there.

I want to hear from Secretary Kempthorne what action he plans to take to be certain that we won't see this sort of problem again. I want to hear from Mr. Laverty what he would do, if he is confirmed to the post of Assistant Secretary, to end the politicization of the Fish and Wildlife Service. We cannot continue to have government scientists whose work is manipulated and conclusions are rewritten by political appointees. We cannot continue to have federal officials working secretly with groups challenging their own agencies.

Until I receive these assurances, I will object to any unanimous consent agreement to allow Mr. Laverty's nomination to come to a vote in the Senate.

Madam President, I would like to thank the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, and the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, for their leadership in crafting the America COMPETES Act and managing it on the Senate floor. I would also like to thank Senator Inouye and Senator Kennedy for their roles in developing and moving this bill. It is a critical piece of legislation that will help ensure our great Nation remains competitive in the global economy.

I would also like to thank my distinguished colleague from Oregon, Mr. Smith, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, and the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, Mr.

Pryor, for working with me to draft language to enable high schools and colleges to purchase nanotechnology equipment through grants from the National Science Foundation. And I thank the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, for working with us to add some of that language to his important amendment to this fine bill.

Nanotechnology involves the understanding and control of matter at dimensions of roughly 1 to 100 nanometers--as small as a single molecule. At that scale, unique phenomena enable novel applications. The rapidly growing field of nanotechnology is generating scientific and technological breakthroughs that will benefit society by improving the way many things are designed and made. It will continue to be at the heart of innovation in a wide range of sectors for decades to come.

With the inclusion of the language that we proposed, partnerships between low income school districts, colleges and universities, and businesses will be able to secure funds to purchase classroom versions of scanning electron microscopes and other tools that are fundamental to the study of nanotechnology.

I agree with my colleague. It is well documented that America needs to address the science, technology, engineering and math deficit--this entire bill is a reflection of that understanding. This deficit is possibly greatest in the Nation's poorest school districts. Yet these school districts also offer a reservoir of potential-- potential, if properly tapped, that could generate hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers who can help ensure that America can compete in the global marketplace, and harness the economic promise--and good paying jobs--of emerging fields like nanotechnology.

I have seen some of the nanotechnology equipment that folks will be able to use these funds to purchase. And honestly, it is exciting stuff. I expect that it will help generate the enthusiasm, as well as the knowledge and understanding, necessary to attract and retain America's future nanotechnologists.

So I would urge the Director of the National Science Foundation, as he is implementing this program, to give special attention to grant proposals that include a nanotechnology element.

I would like to make one last point--the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act will come up for reauthorization next year. As one of the authors of the act, and as one of the cochairmen of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, I am looking forward to hearing my colleagues' thoughts about how the act might be amended to further promote American competitiveness in the vitally important field of nanotechnology.

authorization for department of energy basic research, section 2006

Parliamentary inquiry: How much time remains on our side?

It is my intention to go a little less than 10 minutes. I know the distinguished chairman of the committee is here as well, and I want him to be able to speak for our side.

Mr. President, I have always tried to work in a bipartisan way on health care. I voted in favor of creating the Medicare prescription drug program. I do not favor the Government running everything in health care. In fact, I have introduced legislation that would ensure that the government would not run everything. I believe it is important that pharmaceutical companies be successful in developing new products and therapies for America's seniors and for patients who are suffering. I believe it is time for the Senate to right a wrong. Outlawing the Government from any and every opportunity to negotiate lower drug prices for millions of seniors and taxpayers is an instance of special interest overreaching. Everybody else in America negotiates. Employers negotiate. Labor unions negotiate. Individuals negotiate. Everybody tries to be a smart shopper. Certainly Medicare, with 43 million people's interest on the line, ought to do everything it possibly can to be a savvy shopper.

It is especially important that the Government not give up the right to negotiate when single-source drugs are involved. These are drugs where there is no competition and no therapeutic equivalent. For many patients, a single-source drug is essentially the only drug available. Cancer drugs often fall into this particular category. What this means is, seniors who depend on these cancer drugs for their very survival often face bills of thousands and thousands of dollars. In my hometown, it can often cost something like $400 for a particular injection. We are talking about treatment with these single-source drugs for those who are suffering, say, from leukemia, from kidney disease. For the life of me, I don't see how it is common sense to say that we are going to give up every single opportunity for all time for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to try to negotiate a better deal for those seniors on drugs where there is no competition.

Senator Snowe and I have worked for more than 3 years in a bipartisan way to address the most important concerns of our colleagues who have questioned this proposal. We believe strongly that we should not have price controls in any shape or form. Price controls clearly impede innovation and the development of new therapies. We should not do that. Chairman Baucus has ensured that price controls would not be allowed under the measure before the Senate today.

Senator Snowe and I also believe strongly that there should not be restrictive formularies. These form- ularies--to use technical health care lingo--essentially involve a list of drugs to which seniors could get access. We should not restrict the access of seniors to medicines. Senator Snowe and I have made that a priority for more than 3 years. Chairman Baucus has addressed that as well.

We don't have any one-size-fits-all, run-from-Washington kind of pricing regimes. All we have said is: Let's make sure we can negotiate when it is critically important. I submit, in every one of these budget letters--I know the history has been hard to follow; one said this, one said that--every one has indicated that there can be savings when there are single-source drugs involved in negotiation. I emphasize that. For certain cancer drugs, where seniors can be spending thousands and thousands of dollars, there is the potential for savings when the Secretary has a role there.

Not a single person in the Congress today can imagine all of the scenarios possible that may come up in 10 or 20 years, what new drugs there may be that could cure or treat health problems. There can be situations in the future where, for example, a different Secretary of Health and Human Services would use negotiating authority to get savings that can't be anticipated for drugs that haven't even been contemplated today. It doesn't make sense for the Congress to preemptively outlaw future savings. It especially doesn't make sense when the American Association of Retired Persons, in an RX Watchdog Report that looked at nearly 200 drugs including the most commonly used brand-name medications, has found that seniors very often need medicines that carry price tags that have gone up twice the rate of inflation. So we have older people getting hit--almost clobbered--with these costs which are going up more than twice the rate of inflation.

I and others have said we want to be sensitive to the question of innovation. That is why we have not supported price controls. But when you are talking about drugs, such as certain cancer drugs, and the interests of older people, let us not say, for all time, and in every instance, we are going to forsake the opportunity to negotiate.

Given that is possible to negotiate savings for seniors, if you stand up at a town meeting anywhere in this country and say, well, gosh, that is no big deal, I think seniors and taxpayers would say, try to get us the most value out of this program. This is a program I voted for and that I have always tried to look at ways to improve. I think there are plenty of ways under the leadership of Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley we can improve this program.

Certainly, it is still far too complicated. You almost have to be a legal wizard to sort through some of these forms and to be able to compare the possibilities you might have for your coverage. So there are other steps that can be taken in a bipartisan way. But we ought to have a real debate in the Senate on one of the most important pocketbook issues of our time. This is what people talk about in coffee shops, in senior centers, and in community halls all across the country.

I think the proposal Chairman Baucus has developed in this area makes sense. It does not go over the line and impede pharmaceutical innovation. It ensures we are going to be on the side of trying to stand up for seniors when it comes to those drugs, such as the cancer drugs I have discussed this morning, when they have trouble affording them.

I hope our colleagues will vote for the motion to proceed and a chance for the Senate to have a real debate rather than this abridged kind of discussion where only a handful of Senators can participate.

I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee for making sure this gets to the floor and, particularly, my colleague, Senator Snowe, who has worked with me on this issue in a bipartisan way for more than 3 years. If we get a chance to proceed, she and I will be offering an amendment to strengthen the proposal still further.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time does our side have remaining?

Mr. President, I have great respect for the Senator from Iowa, but I simply want to set the record straight with respect to a couple of points. The distinguished Senator from Iowa was talking about the House bill to a great extent. We are not dealing with the House bill. I want to be very clear what the Senate bill does.

All the Senate bill does is lift this restriction which bars the Secretary from ever having a role in negotiation. This bill--the measure that is before the Senate--does not take over the role of the private plans. The private plans would continue as they have since the program's inception: to sign the contracts, to conduct the various activities to make sure that seniors can purchase that coverage. There is no takeover of private plans, despite what has been suggested.

Point No. 2: In no way does the measure now before the Senate limit access to drugs for seniors. We have been told that under this particular measure, there would be huge restrictions with respect to seniors being able to get drugs, that there would be formularies established, a variety of prescriptive arrangements that would deny choice. That is not the case in this legislation.

Let's be clear. One, this is not the bill that is before the House. It is not the bill the House has acted on. Two, it simply lifts the restriction. Three, it doesn't take over the role of the private plans. The Secretary is simply complementing the role of the private plans. Four, under this particular measure, the Government would not limit access to drugs. There would be no restriction on drugs that seniors could get under this bill.

I only come back to the point I made earlier. This is about patients who are hurting. This is about those cancer patients, for example, who are taking drugs for which there is no competitive alternative, where there is no therapeutic alternative. Should we simply sit by and say that when they have to spend thousands and thousands for those cancer drugs--cancer drugs that are essential to their survival--are we going to say that we should give up any and every opportunity for the Secretary to try to negotiate a good price? I think we understand this is a straightforward issue. This is about whether we are going to have a real debate on one of the most important consumer issues of our time.

There are groups such as the AARP that have brought to the attention of every Senator what this means for their members. This is what people are talking about in coffee shops. They are talking about it in community centers. They are talking about it all across the country because they think when you have a program that has 43 million people, be the smartest shopper you possibly can.

We have the private plans out there already. The Baucus proposal--and I want to emphasize this--does not restrict the role of those private plans. It is going to go forward.

The question is, Should we make it possible for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to complement that role, to go beyond it and to say there may be some instances where we ought to negotiate? I voted for the Medicare prescription drug program. I do not support the idea of Government running everything in American health care, but it is time to right a wrong. This particular provision, which restricts the Secretary from ever negotiating, is an example of special interest overreaching.

The Senate ought to say today: We want to proceed to a real debate, not this abridged version where only a handful of Senators could participate. I am glad I could correct the record so that as we go to the vote, Senators understand that this bill is not the House bill, that this bill will not restrict the private plans, and it will not restrict access for seniors to medications. I urge our colleagues to vote for the motion to proceed.

Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry: Our side has 2 minutes to close; am I correct?

As one who voted to establish the Medicare prescription drug program and believes in bipartisanship, my message today to colleagues on the other side and on this side is this: We can do better.

There are patients who are enrolled in this program--enrolled right now--who are heart transplant patients and patients suffering from cancer, who, while enrolled in the program, are seeing their medicines go up hundreds of dollars--hundreds and hundreds of dollars in 1 month. They are enrolled in this program that I have voted for.

I say to my colleagues, let us look at ways to do better. The private plans are going to continue to take the lead. This measure does not preempt the work of those private plans. But in the name of those seniors who are enrolled in this program, who are seeing their bills go up hundreds of dollars a month right now, let us not pass up the opportunity to do better.

If we don't vote for cloture and go to this bill, we will not even have a debate in the Senate on an issue with such immediate life-and- death implications for our people, and I simply think that is wrong. I wish to make this program better. I wish to make sure we take advantage of every opportunity to do that.

I urge our colleagues, in the name of seniors who are enrolled in the program today and are having difficulty paying their bills, to vote for cloture. Let us have a real debate on this legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his courtesy. If it would not be too great an imposition, I will speak for a few minutes on the Intelligence bill. That would be very much appreciated.

Again, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his courtesy. I will speak less than 10 minutes. I so appreciate the thoughtfulness of the Senator from West Virginia.

Before he leaves, Senator Byrd has always been so kind to this Senator. I appreciate it.

I wish to take a few moments to talk about the critically important Intelligence authorization bill that is before the Senate now. I am disappointed that this legislation has not yet passed because it seems to me that Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond have done an awful lot of very good work in terms of negotiating on this legislation and doing it in a bipartisan fashion. A number of us have felt that it was critically important that intelligence, in the days ahead, at a time of great threat to our country, be an area that is pursued in a bipartisan way. My view is that Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond have really kept that kind of bipartisan lodestar in mind as we have conducted our work throughout this session. That is one of the reasons I have so wanted this legislation to move forward.

I wish to take a minute to highlight just one of the provisions that seems to be objectionable to the executive branch and try to show how, in my view, that should not be the case and how the Senate ought to come together around it and move forward on this bipartisan piece of legislation.

There is a provision in the bill the Senate is now considering--a provision that I offered--which would make public the total size of our national intelligence budget. This provision would not make public how much the country spends on any particular collection method; it would simply state the U.S. Government spends X amount of money on national intelligence programs.

This has long received bipartisan support. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission was for it. The former Director of the CIA, Stansfield Turner, is for it. I would like to note that our current Secretary of Defense, Secretary Gates, when he was before the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee--and I will quote here--said:

From my personal perspective, I don't have any problem with

releasing the top line of the intelligence community budget.

I am of the view that Secretary Gates was right when he said that a number of years ago, and he is right at this time as well. In my view, to suggest that disclosing the total size of our national intelligence budget would cause any harm whatsoever to national security is ridiculous. It is absolutely absurd to think that Osama bin Laden is off in a cave somewhere contemplating what the overall national intelligence budget is. It is absurd to suggest that Kim Jong Il is somehow sitting in his office wondering and worrying, for example, whether the Wyden amendment to the intelligence authorization is going to pass. It is absurd to believe that any terrorist or dictator or any other enemy of the United States will gain any sort of advantage whatever from the public disclosure of the top line of the national intelligence budget.

But there are people who will gain an advantage; that is, the American people. Making the total size of our intelligence public is going to increase public accountability and will allow for a more informed debate about national security. If the national intelligence budget's overall number is made public, there will be a more informed discussion about whether money should be spent on aircraft carriers or submarines or on intelligence gathering. This debate will only ensure that taxpayer dollars are used more wisely and that America will be safer.

Senator Byrd has been very gracious to give me this time this afternoon. There are other provisions that I feel strongly about in this legislation. The increased penalties, for example, for outing a covert agent is something I feel strongly about. After the Dubai Ports debate, it is clear that there should be additional resources devoted to looking at the intelligence ramifications of those particular issues.

But my bottom line is, at a time when Americans are questioning our intelligence agencies' ability to keep them safe, the Congress has a responsibility to provide support. At a time when the intelligence community is undergoing major reorganization, the Congress has a responsibility to provide guidance. At a time when our allies and our citizens are raising serious questions about detention issues, Congress has a responsibility to conduct oversight. At a time when Americans continue to open their morning papers and read about aggressive new forms of Government surveillance and, in particular, the now-disclosed abuse of the national security letters, Congress has a responsibility to demand accountability.

Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond have done a lot of good work on this legislation. The distinguished occupant of the chair has been involved in those debates, and we are pleased that he is part of the committee. I hope the Senate will move expeditiously to move forward on this legislation. It is an important bill, at a critical time for the security of the American people.

Again, I express my appreciation to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for giving me the opportunity to speak this afternoon.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

I would be glad to yield.

Madam President, the Virginia Tech community is grieving this afternoon, and our country grieves with them. To see so many young people taken from us with their lives ahead of them is an unspeakable horror, one that words simply cannot capture.

Oregonians saw a horrible school shooting in 1998, and I know that across my State, Oregonians this afternoon are sending their prayers to the Virginia Tech community. I join with those Oregonians in sending our prayers to the Virginia Tech family, and on behalf of the people of my State, I want those at Virginia Tech to know they are in our hearts and minds at this critical hour and during this time of unspeakable tragedy.

(The remarks of Mr. Wyden pertaining to the introduction of S. IIII are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')