Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, with the Senate heading for the break for the Fourth of July recess, obviously, there will not be many more days left in this year's schedule. I am going to spend

some time on the floor in the days ahead focusing on those areas where there is significant bipartisan support for making a real difference for the American people, especially on those key domestic issues of energy and health care, two areas I know the Presiding Officer, the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, cares a great deal about.

For example, on the energy front, today, I and Senator Kyl and Senator Snowe and Senator Lieberman sent a letter to the distinguished majority leader, Senator Frist, asking that we have an opportunity to debate how the Government can save between $20 billion and $80 billion on an energy program that is totally out of control. It involves the Federal Government's oil and natural gas royalty program.

It is a program that began at a time when oil was somewhere in the vicinity of $20 a barrel. It has been a bipartisan concern of Senators that it makes no sense to spend billions and billions of dollars subsidizing the price of oil when it is at record levels.

I spent, as you know, Mr. President, about 5 hours on the floor of the U.S. Senate discussing this issue a few weeks ago, and I certainly have no intention of duplicating that this afternoon. But I do think it is important to zero in on those issues that have bipartisan support, and I want to describe what has happened in the Senate and in the other body since I and Senator Kyl talked about this program a number of weeks ago.

After we discussed it for those many hours on the floor of the U.S. Senate, on May 17 the House of Representatives voted on a measure that was virtually identical to the final Wyden-Kyl amendment. Two-hundred and fifty Members of the House of Representatives, with regard to this issue, after a lengthy debate, voted to address a mistake that has been pointed out by Senators of both political parties here on this floor.

So my hope is--and this is the point of our bipartisan letter to Senator Frist today--we can get an opportunity for a real debate on this issue on the floor of the U.S. Senate before the Senate breaks for the August recess.

It is one thing to talk about subsidies at a time, for example, when the price of oil is low, when the oil sector is hurting, when they are having difficulty getting the adequate dollars together for the investments that are needed in this vital part of our economy. But certainly that is not the case today. Today we are talking about record profits, we are talking about record prices, and we certainly do not need record subsidies.

I and Senator Kyl would like a chance to put this issue before the entire U.S. Senate. On our letter today to the majority leader, Senator Snowe and Senator Lieberman--two Members who have been very involved in these issues for a number of years as well--are joining us.

I also point out the mistakes in this program are bipartisan. Certainly, there were mistakes made during the Clinton administration when there was a failure to address what is called the threshold issue to ensure you do not subsidize these oil companies at a time when profits are extremely high and you do not need these incentives. So the Clinton administration mangled the job before President Bush and his team took over. But certainly the problem was compounded by Gale Norton, who was then Secretary of the Interior, who insisted on raising the subsidies even more administratively.

And then, as I talked about on the floor of the Senate when the Congress passed the energy bill as part of this session, the deal was sweetened even more. Again, virtually no independent expert thought the subsidies were needed. When I asked the oil company executives, who came before the Energy Committee, on which the Presiding Officer, the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, and I both serve, the executives, to a person, said: We do not need these subsidies at a time of record prices and record profits.

So the Congress is behind the American people. Frankly, the Congress is lagging behind even what the oil executives have said they could live with. At a time when the House of Representatives--more than 250 in number--has voted to cut these subsidies, the Senate should not be dawdling on this issue any longer.

We are talking about substantial sums of money. The General Accounting Office has said it is in the vicinity of $20 billion. There is litigation underway now. If the litigation is successful, the bill to the Government could be in the vicinity of $80 billion. That is a substantial amount of money to be frittering away now when there are all these pressing needs here at home and for our country.

So given that I am going to be talking in the days ahead about issues where there is significant bipartisan support, specifically focusing on these key domestic issues of health care and energy, I start today by making a unanimous consent request that the letter that I, Senator Kyl, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Snowe have sent to Senator Frist be printed in the Record.

It is the hope of the bipartisan group of Senators that have followed this issue that this program, run by the Minerals Management Service, can be corrected. These are costly, costly mistakes involving billions of dollars. The Presiding Officer, the Senator from North Carolina, has been a great advocate of renewable energy.

For example, think what you could do if you took just a fraction of the money that is being wasted on royalty relief and moved it to the renewable energy field. You could help stimulate renewable energy production and reduce the deficit simultaneously. So that is what the bipartisan group of Senators want to do on this key issue.

Since I talked at some length about this a few weeks ago, I think I will move on to the other pocketbook issue. But I do hope, with hundreds of bills having been introduced in the Senate in both the energy and health care areas, that as we go into these last days of the session, the focus can be on those pieces of legislation that have

significant bipartisan support. That is true in the case of oil royalty relief and cutting those needless subsidies. It is also true with respect to prescription drugs, and I will wrap up with a few comments in that regard.

Mr. President, on the prescription drug issue, we saw, just a few days ago, two reports issued, one by AARP and the other by Families USA, indicating we have seen a very significant increase in the cost of prescription medicine since the beginning of this year. This comes, of course, at a time when Medicare Part D, the prescription drug program, is just kicking in. It comes at a time, of course, when we have seen the costs of this program skyrocket far beyond the original projections.

It would indicate to me that some of those who said competition in the private sector alone was going to do the job have not dealt with the consequences of what happens when the Government does not back up those private-sector kind of efforts. As you will recall, in the prescription drug debate, I was one of nine on this side of the aisle who voted for the legislation. I have got the welts on my back to show for it.

Senator Snowe and I said then that we have to make sure the Government isn't the only part of the prescription drug arena where there is no opportunity to hold down the cost of medicine. Everybody else bargains today for the cost of medicine. That is true for any manufacturing in North Carolina. It is true in Oregon. It is true anywhere. Nobody ties their hands behind their back when it comes to trying to get the full value for their dollar in the health care sector. The only one who has their hands tied behind their back is the Federal Government when it comes to prescription medicine purchased under the Part D Medicare Program.

My sense is that this is another area where, with significant bipartisan support, Congress can move ahead. On the question of lifting the restriction so that Medicare can bargain to hold down the cost of medicine, Senator Snowe and I got 54 votes for our bipartisan proposal to change the law. Once again, significant bipartisan support was given for a major change that will help taxpayers and consumers.

My sense is the price increases in prescription drugs we are seeing today is because there are few restraints on the prices that can be charged. There are what are called PBMs, pharmaceutical benefit managers. They have a role to play. It can be a useful one. But if we are really going to make sure we are using all the tools to hold down the cost of medicine, the Government ought to have authority to say, if the private sector isn't going to give a fair shake to seniors and taxpayers, there ought to be backup authority. The Government should be able to say: We are going to now make it clear that there is an opportunity to bargain and do what everybody else in America does to hold down the cost of medicine.

The price increases we have seen in the first 3 months of this year comprise the largest quarterly price increases in 6 years. It comes at a time when the Medicare prescription drug program is going into effect. The prices jumped something like four times the general inflation rate. We are seeing, right at a key time when the Medicare prescription drug program is getting off the ground, prices go up four times faster than the inflation rate. We are seeing the biggest quarterly price increases in 6 years. That makes the case for the Congress looking at a bipartisan way to beef up opportunities to contain the cost of prescription drug medicine.

In the Snowe-Wyden legislation which received 54 votes, we specifically state that there can be no price controls and no uniform formulary which would be, in effect, a backdoor Federal price control. I know the Senator from North Carolina has been interested in the question of what will happen to research, what will happen to innovation. I happen to share the view of the Senator from North Carolina that to come up with big price control regimes and Federal arbitrary standards for the formularies that make judgments about medicine would be a mistake. Under our legislation, we specifically say we will lift the restriction on bargaining power so the Government will not be the only part of the health care sector that is not trying to get value for the dollar. But our amendment said no price controls and no uniform, one-size-fits-all formulary that, for all practical purposes, would be a backdoor set of price controls.

These two studies from AARP and Families USA are extremely alarming because the theory behind the Medicare prescription drug program was that having a variety of plans in the private sector would produce competition, and competition would serve to hold down the cost of medicine. Now there is concrete proof that competition alone is not serving to be an adequate strategy for containing the cost of medicine. That is why the bipartisan amendment Senator Snowe and I have been pursuing since the prescription drug program went into effect several years ago is much needed.

When you have these higher prescription drug prices, premiums seniors have to pay almost always bump up. Let's think about what happens if you bump up the premiums the seniors pay for Medicare Part D. One of the things I have seen in my years of working with older people--it goes back to my days when I was director of the Gray Panthers--is you jack up the premiums on seniors and, as sure as the night follows the day, you will get fewer seniors enrolling in the program.

We understand that if this program is going to be successful over the long term, you have to get more seniors signed up. You have to get more seniors enrolled. But what happens when you have higher drug prices as AARP and Families USA found, will be higher premiums next year for seniors in the Part D program. Then all of a sudden, with higher prices and higher premiums, what will happen is fewer seniors will sign up for the program. And without them enrolling in this program, Part D will not be the success we all would like to it to be, especially those of us who voted for it.

I wanted to take a few minutes today to talk about two issues: the question of needless oil company subsidies, an effort Senator Kyl and I have spearheaded that has significant bipartisan support for saving taxpayers money, getting us on track for a fresh, new energy policy that can truly make us free of our dependence on foreign oil; and this question of prescription drug costs where, as well. There is significant bipartisan support to put bargaining power in Medicare. The Snowe-Wyden amendment received 54 votes the last time the Senate voted on it. There is a real role for the Senate to play at this key time now that it has been reported that drug prices jumped up in the first quarter of this year just as the Medicare Part D Program was going into effect.

Finally, we understand that on the Senate calendar there is not going to be a time for every possible issue to be considered. In the case of energy and health care, there are hundreds of bills in both areas, both energy and medical services, that have been introduced by Senators of both parties. My hope is that a handful of these issues can be moved to the head of the queue. The real measure for consideration ought to be significant bipartisan support.

In the areas I have talked about this afternoon, that test has been met. The other body has already passed efforts to reduce these needless oil subsidies, essentially passed the very thing I talked about on the floor of the Senate for 5 hours. A majority of Senators have voted for the effort Senator Snowe and I have spearheaded to hold down the cost of medicine. There are opportunities, at a time when the country is looking at the partisanship coming from Washington, DC, to bring the Senate together around good and bipartisan legislation that addresses the pocketbook concerns of the American people. That is why I have come to the Chamber to talk about how we can make a difference working together for the public.

It is my intention to come back in the weeks ahead to talk about similar efforts that can actually be passed in the Senate before the session wraps up and constitute the kind of good government the American people expect from the Senate.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, let me begin by saying I very much share the view of the Senator from Alabama about our troops. Day in and day out, they bring the utmost professionalism and the utmost courage and valor to the cause of standing up for American values. I very much share his views with respect to the tribute we ought to be paying to those who serve us, who wear the uniform of the United States and who do it with such extraordinary patriotism and service to our country.

(Mr. SESSIONS assumed the Chair.)

What I am here to talk about, though, is the political decisions that are made and how they affect those courageous troops and how they affect the security of the country.

In March of this year, at a press conference, a reporter asked President Bush:

Will there come a day, and I'm not asking you when, not

asking for a timetable--will there come a day when there will

be no more American forces in Iraq?

The President responded:

That, of course, is an objective and that will be decided

by future Presidents and future governments of Iraq.

. . . decided by future Presidents. . . .

. . . decided by future Presidents. . . .

. . . decided by future Presidents. . . .

I found that statement troubling for two major reasons. First, staying in Iraq for years and years, in my view, will threaten Americans' preparedness to deal with a host of other threats that ought to concern all of us. Certainly at the top of that list would be Iran and North Korea, but suffice it to say, it is a dangerous world.

I serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I know the distinguished Senator from Alabama has a great interest in military affairs. No Senator who looks at the facts and the world in a realistic way would conclude otherwise. It is a dangerous world. There are real threats to our country. It is my view that to stay and stay and stay in Iraq will threaten the preparedness of our country at a dangerous time.

Second, it seems to me that making this kind of open-ended commitment to stay in Iraq, an open-ended commitment that in effect says we will be there at least until 2009, doesn't send the right message to the Iraqis about getting serious about their most serious challenges. For example, when I was recently in Iraq with my colleague, Senator Snowe, I was especially troubled by the Iraqis' response to my concerns about corruption in the Iraqi oil sector. We all know that 90 percent of the revenue generated in Iraq comes from oil, and there has been one independent analysis after another documenting widespread corruption in Iraq's oil sector. I brought that to the attention of the officials Senator Snowe and I met with on our trip. Essentially, the response was one of denial: Well, Senator, it really isn't that bad; well, Senator, we are getting serious about it; well, Senator, we are thinking about trying X, Y, and Z.

But I say to the Senate today that we continue to read these independent

analyses which have documented widespread corruption and malfeasance in the Iraqi oil sector. Yet it is not being dealt with. My view is that to say the future of American forces in Iraq will be decided by future Presidents is yet another signal to the Iraqis that they have plenty of time to deal with serious problems like corruption in the oil sector, which should have been dealt with some time ago.

Again, I share the view of the Senator from Alabama concerning the professionalism of our troops. Our country and the world is better as a result of the death of Mr. Zarqawi. The kind of carnage and the brutal campaign that Mr. Zarqawi conducted is well understood. We are all very hopeful, because we all root for success in Iraq, that this will deal a blow to the insurgency. Our soldiers and all concerned ought to be proud of what they accomplished in taking down Zarqawi. I am proud of them. I know the Senator from Alabama is as well.

But let us think about the implications of overstretching our Armed Forces. That is why I say I am troubled about what is going to happen to American preparedness for a dangerous world if we stay and stay and stay--until at least 2009. Oregon Guard members, for example, of whom we are exceptionally proud, are on their third rotation in the theater. Some Active-Duty Forces are on their fourth rotation. Others are getting ready for their fifth rotation into harm's way. I am sure that is also the case in Alabama. I am sure it is also the case in every part of the United States. I will tell the Senate today that I think the stress our courageous Armed Forces are dealing with now is at the point where, if we can't get the Iraqis to speed up securing their own defense, this is going to undermine America's preparedness to deal with a dangerous world.

Our Armed Forces are maintaining an exceptional level of professionalism under exceptional stress, but at a certain point it is just not possible to continue in that way and be ready for the kinds of crises and the kinds of national security challenges that exist today. So the preparedness of our U.S. military to deal with a host of national security challenges hinges on what happens in Iraq. The more responsibility the Iraqis take for their future, the less the United States must shoulder, and the sooner we can start bringing our troops home.

When our President says that a future American President will decide when to bring U.S. troops home, it seems to me that sends a message to the Iraqis that they have a lot more time. For the sake of preparedness, for the sake of Iraq securing its own future, we have to speed this timetable up. American troops cannot and should not be in Iraq forever.

Shortly, I will introduce a very simple resolution. It is a sense of the Senate on the President's intention to keep U.S. forces in Iraq until at least 2009. The resolution is very simple. I will just read it this afternoon:

That it is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) the members of the Armed Forces deserve the enormous

respect and support of the Senate and the American people for

the sacrifices that they are making on behalf of our country;

and

(2) the President's intention, as stated on March 21, 2006,

that ``future Presidents'' will determine whether to keep

members of the Armed Forces in Iraq undermines the

preparedness of the United States military to respond to

other crises and should not be supported.

I will close. Again I pick up on the Chair's statement about the commitment of our troops and their courage and their valor. This is not, today, a debate about whether it was right to go to war. We had that debate. I was on the side that voted against, and other Senators were for it. We are long past that point. What we are dealing with now is how to win the peace. That is something which all Senators should be looking to try to work together on and find some bipartisan common ground.

I commend the Senator from Alabama for his statement about our troops. But I do believe we have to find a way to get beyond some of these artificial choices--like cutting and running or staying the course. Hopefully we can do that. I believe one area for bipartisan cooperation should be to try to speed up Iraq taking over its own future.

I was very troubled by the statement that it was the President's intention that the future of our Armed Forces in Iraq would be dealt with by future Presidents. We have to deal with it now. We have to find a way to win the peace and do it on a bipartisan basis. I intend to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to advance this goal, which is not about whether you are for the war or against the war, it is today about winning the peace, and that is why I will be offering my resolution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senators Stevens and Inouye, the chair and ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, for their efforts in incorporating my amendment into the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2005, S. 2012. My amendment makes Oregon's salmon fishermen eligible for disaster assistance. Their willingness to accommodate my concerns and help Oregon's salmon fishers means that I can withdraw the objection I issued 2 weeks ago to any unanimous consent request for the Senate to act on the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act. I also wish to thank Senator Smith and Senator Boxer for their important contributions and assistance. I look forward to swift passage of the legislation, as amended.

The inclusion of the disaster declaration in the Magnuson-Stevens authorization is an important first step in getting relief for our salmon fishers and coastal communities that depend on salmon for their livelihoods. After waiting months for a disaster declaration from the administration, our salmon fishers now finally have some movement to help address their immediate financial needs.

Even with this important language, the fight to help Oregon's salmon fishermen is far from over, and I will continue to press for congressional appropriations to fund the disaster assistance fishing families and the coastal fishing communities need.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Gordon Smith, Senator Larry Craig and Senator Patty Murray in introducing the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2006--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 river 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 de-listing 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.'' [from ``Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Programs, FY 2002-2004'', U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., July, 2005, p. 13]

The bill that we are introducing today specifically extends the authorization for this program through 2012; 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 projects funded under the act are viewed as recipients of a ``pass through program'' and not a ``grant'' program; that any Bonneville Power Administration, BPA, funds provided either directly or through a grant to another entity shall be considered non-Federal 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 are scaled in proportion to the amount of funds appropriated for the program each year.

Ultimately, it will take the combined efforts of all interests in our region to recover our salmon. State, Tribal 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 and a letter of support from Oregon Governor Kulongoski be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Gordon Smith, Senator Larry Craig and Senator Patty Murray in introducing the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2006--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 river 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 de-listing 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.'' [from ``Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Programs, FY 2002-2004'', U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., July, 2005, p. 13]

The bill that we are introducing today specifically extends the authorization for this program through 2012; 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 projects funded under the act are viewed as recipients of a ``pass through program'' and not a ``grant'' program; that any Bonneville Power Administration, BPA, funds provided either directly or through a grant to another entity shall be considered non-Federal 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 are scaled in proportion to the amount of funds appropriated for the program each year.

Ultimately, it will take the combined efforts of all interests in our region to recover our salmon. State, Tribal 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 and a letter of support from Oregon Governor Kulongoski be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, tomorrow in the other body, the House of Representatives, they will begin debating one of the most important communications issues facing our country--the future of the Internet.

Since the other body will begin that discussion shortly and we have had debate beginning in the Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Senator Stevens who worked so cooperatively with Senator Inouye, I wish to take a few minutes and talk about why I think this issue is so important and what the stakes are for our country.

We all understand what has been so exciting about the Internet. The Internet has been a tremendously democratizing force, ensuring that in every nook and cranny of America, opportunities are there for Americans to learn, to tap the free enterprise system and to secure health care to name a few. This is an extraordinary array of opportunities.

Today on the Internet, after you have paid your access charge to use the Net, you go where you want, when you want, how you want, free of discrimination because you have paid that one original access charge.

Unfortunately, there are huge communications lobbies, consisting particularly of some of the major phone companies and some of the major cable companies, that want to change the way the Internet works. They would like to make consumers and businesses in our country pay tomorrow for what is free today.

Today, when small businesses or consumers pay their Internet access charge, they can go wherever they want, whenever they want, however they want, without racking up extra charges and without facing discrimination. Unfortunately, these big communications lobbies would like to change that. For example, we see reports in distinguished business publications, such as the Wall Street Journal. They talk there about communications plans that are ``pay to play.'' If you were going to go to a variety of Web sites, under the approach they are proposing in the Wall Street Journal, the Web sites or the consumer would have to pay every time they went to one of these Web sites, in order to get good quality service.

I don't think that is right. I think that is discrimination. I think it is discriminating against consumers, I think it is discriminating against small businesses. I think it will do extraordinary damage to the inherent beauty of the Internet, which has been all about a fair shake for every American, for every consumer.

In an effort to spin this discrimination by the big cable companies and big phone companies against the consumers, the big lobbies are engaged in a huge advertising blitz. By my back-of-the-envelope calculations, these big lobbies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on advertisements to convince the American people that discrimination and these extra charges they would face on the Internet are actually good for consumers and businesses.

If it is so good for the consumer, why are these lobbies spending millions of dollars on these advertisements to tell the American people about it? If discrimination was so good, wouldn't consumers have been interested in paying higher prices a long time ago?

It is hard to open the pages of a newspaper or turn on the television without seeing an advertisement urging people to stop Congress from ``regulating the Internet.'' One trade association has even placed ads in the airports around Washington, DC, hoping Senators and Representatives traveling back to their States will see them. I can't imagine the executives of these large corporations would commit such large sums to advertising if they didn't think these kinds of advertisements would pay off handsomely in profits.

Groups, such as Hands Off the Internet, a front group for some of the big communications lobbies, have offered some eye-popping ads. Look at this recent ad, for example, in which they display a copy of my legislation, the Internet Nondiscrimination Act. The only thing accurate about this ad is the top page of my bill. It has my name on it. It clearly says the ``Internet Nondiscrimination Act,'' but just about everything else is dead wrong. What they have done is falsely add what looks like hundreds, if not thousands, of pages to my bill. This is how they demonstrate what my legislation is all about. Here is the reality, Mr. President. Here is what they say I propose. However, this is just not accurate. Here is what my legislation looks like, what the big communications lobbies ought to describe as the real world; a piece of legislation that is 15 pages long.

The bill I have introduced, this 15-page bill, doesn't look like anything along the lines of what the big communications lobbies are spending such vast sums on saying it looks like.

There is an even more disturbing misrepresentation in this ad. It says, stamped up at the top, ``regulation.'' My legislation isn't about regulation. All I want is to leave the Internet alone. I don't want it to be subject to discriminatory changes, changes that would hit the American consumer in the pocket.

I think any fairminded American who looks at my record will see that I have never sought to regulate the Internet. On the contrary, when I came to the Senate, I was a leader in the effort to keep the Internet free of discriminatory taxes. I fought to keep the Internet free of regulation. Now I am trying to keep control of the Internet in the hands of the American people and not force Americans in this country to pay tomorrow for what is free today.

If you looked at these advertisements, Mr. President, you would think that neutrality is some newfangled idea that threatens the Internet. Net neutrality is what we have today, and the Internet has thrived precisely because it is neutral. It has thrived because consumers, and not some huge phone company or some huge cable company, get to choose what they want to see and how quickly they get to see it.

I want to make it clear that those of us who are fighting to keep the Net neutral, which means that when you go to your browser, you go where you want, when you want, how you want, after you pay that initial access charge, are not interested in regulating anything. The people who want to make the changes, the big telecom and cable lobbies, are the ones who want to meddle with the Internet. They want to put their hands on the Internet so they can heap all these extra charges on the American people.

Right now there is a small business, a craft maker, in Tigard, OR, who has a Web site where she sells her products all over the world. If these big lobbies have their way, she will have to pay a new hefty fee so customers can continue to have the same access to her Web site. That is not right. The consumer, after they pay that initial access charge, ought to be able to go where they want, when they want, how they want to get there. To make them pay tomorrow for what they get for free today is wrong.

Colleagues are waiting to speak. I had anticipated spending a bit more time on this, but I think this ad says it all. We ought to keep the Internet free

of discrimination. We ought to protect consumers against multiple and discriminatory access charges. The next time somebody sees one of these ads, ads that seem to have millions of dollars of lobby money backing them up, they ought to know that this which purports to represent my legislation is false. What is in this ad suggests scores and scores of pages. The reality is my bill to keep the Internet free of discrimination and protect the consumer is 15 pages long.

This argument at the top of the ad that there will be a host of Net- neutrality regulations is similarly false. It is not about regulating anything on the Internet. I want to keep the Internet the way it is--an open, vibrant system, accessible to all.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, up and down the coast of Oregon, fishermen, their families and communities are suffering from the actions of the Secretary of Commerce in curtailing the Klamath salmon fishery without offering the assistance they need to cope with this disaster. Months ago the Pacific Fishery Management Council recommended to the Secretary of Commerce that this salmon fishery be drastically curtailed. The Secretary responded to the Council's recommendation by slashing the quotas and limiting the number of days and areas that could be fished. But despite numerous pleas for help from the affected communities, the Secretary has done nothing for months and months to help out the fishers whose livelihood depends on the Klamath salmon stocks.

The Secretary's continued inaction is not acceptable, and so I am objecting to any unanimous consent request for the Senate to proceed to or adopt S. 2012, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2005 until the Senate can consider legislative steps that will help fishermen in Oregon and California survive this disastrous fishing season. I make this objection consistent with my policy of always announcing ``holds'' I may place on legislation or nominations.

The State of Oregon is seeking a Presidential emergency declaration for those affected by this Federal action, and I intend to work closely with the State and my colleagues here in the Senate to make sure Oregon's fishing communities are not forgotten and that they receive the aid they will require to make it through this year.

Mr. President, I rise today to attempt, once again, to raise awareness of the plight of countless rural communities due to the impending expiration of the Secure Rural Schools and County Self- Determination Act. I regret that the lack of concern at the White House and the inertia in Congress forces me to put a hold on David Bernhardt, the administration's nominee for Interior Solicitor. It is time for everyone to focus their attention on the needs of the more than 700 rural counties in over 40 States that are depending on the reauthorization of this county payments legislation.

Thus far, the administration's solution to funding county payments is unacceptable. The county payments law, which provides a stable revenue source for education, roads, and other county services in rural areas, is due to expire at the end of this year. In early 2005, I coauthored a bipartisan bill, S. 267, to reauthorize county payments for another 7 years. The bill has 26 Senate cosponsors. In February, the administration proposed reauthorizing the law for only 5 years while cutting funding by 60 percent and funding that reduced portion with a controversial Federal land sale scheme. In response, Senator Baucus proposed a sensible, alternative funding source for county payments, a proposal which I was pleased to cosponsor. Our legislation fully funds county payments by ensuring that a portion of Federal taxes are withheld from payments by the Federal Government to government contractors. The Federal Government currently does not withhold taxes when it pays government contractors. Recently, however, over my objections, Congress approved a major tax bill that uses the Baucus proposal to instead provide tax cuts for this country's most fortunate few. This lack of regard for the historic obligations of the Federal Government to rural counties severs a vitally important funding lifeline to communities throughout the country.

I will hold this nominee--and many nominees coming after him, if need be--until the administration finds an acceptable way to fund county payments.

Mr. President, I have been waiting some time to talk about General Hayden. I note the presence of the distinguished chairman of our committee, a committee on which I am proud to serve. Given the fact we are starting a discussion of General Hayden to head the Central Intelligence Agency, I ask unanimous consent that Chairman Roberts be allowed to speak at this time and that I be able to follow the chairman after he has completed his remarks.

Mr. President, I am next in line, but I understand the majority leader and the distinguished Senator from Nevada wish to have a brief colloquy. I will defer to them and pick up when they are finished.

Mr. President, before he leaves the Chamber, I simply wish to say to the distinguished chairman of our committee that I thank him for his kind and gracious introductory remarks to me. As he knows, sometimes we agree, as we did in the effort to make public the CIA inspector general's report on 9/11. I appreciated working with the distinguished chairman on that matter. Sometimes we disagree, as we do tonight with respect to the nomination of General Hayden, but Chairman Roberts has always been courteous and fair in our committee and essentially to every member. I thank him for that as he leaves the Chamber tonight. Clearly, Chairman Roberts and Senator Hatch, two distinguished members of our Intelligence Committee, want no part of it, but there are those who want to turn the Hayden nomination into a referendum on who is toughest on terrorism, Republicans or Democrats. These people do America a disservice. I know of no Senator who sympathizes with a terrorist. I know of no Senator who wishes to coddle al-Qaida. I know of no Senator who is anything other than a patriot.

Unfortunately, this nomination is being used to divide the Senate and the American people on the issue of terrorism. Just this past Monday, the Washington Post newspaper reported that the White House:

Seems eager for a battle over the nomination of Air Force

GEN Michael V. Hayden as CIA Director.

The article goes on to say:

The White House hopes voters will see the warrantless

surveillance program Hayden started as head of the National

Security Agency as tough on terrorism rather than a violation

of civil liberties.

I believe the American people deserve better than the White House agenda of false choices. I believe one can fight the terrorists ferociously and protect the liberties of law-abiding Americans. I believe the Senate should not be bullied into thinking that security and liberty are mutually exclusive, and I believe that millions of Americans share that view. From the days of Ben Franklin, security and liberty in America have been mutually reinforcing, and it is our job to maintain this sacred balance.

This is harder to do now because across America there is less trust and there is more fear. The lack of trust has been fed by the Bush administration telling the public that they have struck the right balance between security and liberty, but then we have had one media report after another that contradicts that claim.

When the media reports come out, the administration says it can't say anything because responding would help the terrorists, but then the administration responds in multiple forums to get out the small shards of information that they believe is helpful to their point of view.

The increased fear among our people is nourished by the fact that there are no independent checks on the Government's conduct, as there have been for more than 200 years in America. Law-abiding Americans have no reason to be confident that anyone is independently verifying reports about the administration's reported surveillance of their personal phone calls, e-mails, and Internet use.

All of this mistrust and fear has translated into a lack of credibility. The administration has given us, by words and deeds, a national security routine: Do one thing, say another.

An absolute prerequisite to running intelligence programs successfully is credibility. Despite the scores of talented, dedicated, patriotic people working at Langley today, the failings of the Agency's recent leadership have left the Agency's credibility diminished.

The Agency is now looking at the prospect of its fourth Director since 9/11. The last Director brought partisanship and lost talented professional staff as a result. The Agency's No. 3 man, who resigned this month, is being investigated by the FBI for links to the bribing of a former Congressman. It is long past time to get it right at the

Would my colleague yield just briefly for a question?

Mr. President, I was going to talk for about 15 minutes or so. I would be happy to wait for my friend from Alabama, if he would like to finish. How much longer do you intend to speak?

Mr. President, I would be ready in just a couple of minutes to start. If my colleague would like to go on for a couple of additional minutes, and then I will speak, and then he could return.

I thank him for his courtesy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, a couple of weeks ago, I stood in this spot for almost 5 hours because I wanted to prosecute an important cause, the cause of cutting needless subsidies to oil companies when the price of oil is over $70 a barrel. Today the price of oil is still about $70 a barrel, but there is a prospect of some good news. Late last night, the House of Representatives did something that seemed unimaginable in the Senate a couple of weeks ago. They actually had a vote on whether profitable oil companies should get taxpayer-funded royalty giveaways at a time when our citizens are paying record prices at the gas pump.

When I spoke on the floor several weeks ago, all I was trying to do was get an up-or-down vote on exactly what the House of Representatives voted for last night. In fact, I spoke in this spot for more than 4 hours before any Senator of either political party raised any concern about the proposal I was advancing. But despite that extended effort, I was unable to get an up-or-down vote on my proposal to stop ladling out tens of billions of dollars of unnecessary subsidies to the oil industry.

Last night, the House of Representatives not only voted, but they voted overwhelmingly, on a bipartisan basis, to put a stop to this extraordinary waste of taxpayer money.

I remind the Senate and those who may be following this debate that the Government Accountability Office has said that a minimum of $20 billion will be spent on this program. There is litigation involving this program underway. If the litigation is successful, and we are not able to roll back this subsidy, this program could cost taxpayers $80 billion.

Fortunately, the House voted last night to prohibit funding for new offshore oil and natural gas production leases if companies do not pay royalties based on fair market prices. The House vote aims to get oil and gas companies to renegotiate Federal contracts signed in 1998 and 1999 that included royalty relief for companies at a time when crude oil prices were considerably lower than they are now. If the companies wish to continue to get new leases in the future, they would have to renegotiate the old leases and pay royalties based on current market conditions. This is very much along the lines of what I sought, after an extended discussion, to have the Senate vote on just a few weeks ago.

Some have argued that this approach would be essentially like blackmailing the companies by denying new leases

unless they renegotiated the old ones. These opponents have argued that, instead, Congress ought to keep in place these giveaway contracts at a cost of billions of dollars to our citizens.

I also point out, as we did several weeks ago on this floor, that this was a bipartisan ripoff. Mistakes were made during the Clinton administration in 1998 and 1999. Secretary Norton sweetened the pot early on, during the President's term, administratively. Then in the summer of 2005, in the conference between the House and the Senate, these subsidies were made still sweeter. So the sugar just kept coming at a time when the program was already way too sweet for the taste of taxpayers.

No one has a constitutional right to get new leases to drill on Federal lands at giveaway prices. Congress can set new terms and conditions for new leases at any time. In fact, the Congress did just that less than a year ago in passing the Energy bill. The House of Representatives did the same thing in their vote last night. I still believe the Senate ought to have an opportunity to debate and to vote on the oil royalty issue as well, and I will tell the Senate today I am going to do everything in my power to get this issue back on the floor of the Senate as soon as possible. This is a ripoff of our taxpayers. It is an outrage, at a time when middle class folks show up at a gas station in Georgia and Oregon and elsewhere around the country, pay huge prices, and then on top of it their taxpayer dollars are being used to subsidize the companies with these giveaway contracts.

This is too important an issue for the Senate to duck. Too much taxpayer money is at stake for the Senate to duck. I do not see how the Senate can explain away not voting on this after the discussion we have had thus far and after the House of Representatives has now voted, in a bipartisan way, to do what was the subject of extended debate on the Senate floor.

The oil companies are supposed to pay royalties to the Federal Government when they extract oil from Federal lands. But in order to stimulate production of oil in our country, the Federal Government, over the last decade, has been discounting these royalty fees. These discounts now amount to billions of dollars. The royalty relief that is given to the oil companies is now the granddaddy of all the oil subsidies.

There has been a lot of debate on the floor of this body over the last few weeks about tax breaks for the oil companies. The President, in my view, to his credit, has indicated that he understands that these tax breaks are no longer needed. I was very pleased to see that. I was pleased to hear the President's comment because when the chief executives from the major oil companies came to the Energy Committee last November, I literally went down the row and asked them if they continued to need all of these tax breaks.

The oil executives said they don't need the tax breaks. But the Congress decided to keep ladling them out. So on top of the oil companies' record profits, on top of record prices, on top of record tax breaks, what we have seen is record amounts of royalty relief granted to the oil companies as well.

With prices in the stratosphere, I do not see how anyone can justify this multibillion-dollar subsidy. The point of my amendment several weeks ago was to get rid of these special oil company discounts, the special breaks that amount to billions of dollars, unless the price of oil comes down or unless the Bush administration determines that royalty relief is necessary to avoid supply disruption.

There is, in my view, a growing bipartisan chorus saying that royalty relief is not needed. For example, as another showing of bipartisanship in this cause, a distinguished Member of the other body who chairs the Resources Committee, Congressman Richard Pombo, said in a newspaper interview that there is no need for this particular incentive. He said there is not any need for what the Congress has been ladling out and has said it is not necessary at a time of these prices.

In addition, Mr. Michael Coney, a lawyer for the Shell Oil Company, not exactly a place where you would look for somebody to gratuitously bash the industry--he basically said the same thing. He said in this kind of climate you can't make a case for a multibillion-dollar subsidy.

The architect of the program, the author of the program, a very respected, very esteemed former colleague of many of us here, Senator Bennett Johnston of Louisiana, has said what has taken place with respect to the royalty relief program is not at all what he had in mind when he wrote the law.

Last night, the House of Representatives took a landmark step towards reforming this program to reflect current market conditions. I pay a special congratulations to two long-term friends from the other body, Congressman Ed Markey and Congressman Maurice Hinchey. They both spent an enormous amount of time on this issue. They focused on building bipartisan support for their effort. And what Congressman Markey and what Congressman Hinchey were able to do last night was a real breakthrough in terms of protecting the interests of taxpayers. I congratulate those two for building a bipartisan coalition on behalf of this cause.

What I proposed in the Senate was a similar approach to getting the royalty program back on track. I said we ought to roll back these royalty relief subsidies. Let's make sure we are sensitive to the prospect of conditions that can't be anticipated now. If the President says there is going to be a supply disruption or problems are taking place, then we would have a chance to look at it again. Previously, there had been a particular provision in the royalty relief program that said when the oil prices shot up, when they went above a certain level--then it was considered above $34 a barrel--the companies would have to, once again, start paying these royalties. But the problem the Senate and now the House has been looking at stems from the fact that some in the Clinton administration weren't watching the store. They weren't watchdogging this program. They weren't watchdogging the interests of taxpayers as they should have. So they did not put in this clause, the clause that protects taxpayers by setting the price level when you cut off the subsidies, and they didn't include the clause that protects the taxpayers in a number of the leases.

As a result, what has happened is taxpayer money has been wasted and there has been a litigation derby, with scores and scores of lawsuits, with companies still asserting the right to get more cash out of the taxpayer till. The Government Accountability Office has estimated that at minimum the Federal Government is going to be out $20 billion. This is the biggest subsidy of them all in the energy area.

I recall when I was on the Senate floor earlier our colleague from Florida, Senator Nelson, raised an important concern with respect to a oil subsidy program that he was troubled by. It costs the taxpayers $1 billion. Senator Nelson of Florida was spot on, in terms of trying to protect taxpayers and deal with another area where taxpayers' interests have not been well served. But Senator Nelson was talking about something that was relatively small potatoes compared to the money that is involved with royalties.

Suffice it to say, with the subsidies going out the door now and the prospect that the litigation is successful, there is a very real threat that the cost of the subsidy will go still higher, and there are some independent experts in this field who have said that the cost of this program could come in at $80 billion.

Under the Energy bill signed into law last summer, the oil companies were given new subsidies in the form of reduced royalty fees for the oil and gas they extract from Federal land, including offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. This particular new subsidy in the summer of 2005 was signed into law when the companies were already reporting extraordinary profits. We were already seeing the consumer getting pounded at the gas pump, and it would have been an ideal time, in that summer of 2005, for the Congress to do what members of both political parties have been talking about, and that is roll back these unnecessary expenses, these unnecessary costs to taxpayers. It should have been done in that conference in the summer of 2005.

It was wrong that Senators and Members of the other body agreed, in the summer of 2005, to expand a program which has lost any sensible philosophical foundation, a program that

began in a time when oil was around $16 a barrel, and now is one that has been reconfigured into one that gives out subsidies when the price of oil is $70 a barrel.

Back when that energy conference got together in the summer of 2005, those Members of the Senate and the other body should have said: This is the time to draw the line. This royalty relief program does not pass the smell test. It makes absolutely no sense to be dispensing billions and billions of dollars of royalty relief to the oil companies on top of everything else they already receive.

What I hope now, with the promising action that was taken in the House of Representatives late last night, is I hope it is possible for some common sense, some practical action on behalf of taxpayers, to win bipartisan support in the Senate. That is what caused me to come to this floor several weeks ago and stay in this spot for almost 5 hours.

I am about done now because I think we have made the point, and I don't think we need to spend 5 hours on it today. But I will tell you that a program like this, which was useful back when prices were low, makes no sense, no sense at all anymore.

You can argue for government subsidies at a time when, for example, oil prices are low, and when we are talking about the need to stimulate production, when the American economy needs a shot in the arm. But you certainly don't need billions of dollars of royalty relief for companies at a time when you have record profits, record costs, and record tax breaks.

I am very hopeful that when the Senate comes back next week, we will begin a bipartisan effort to put in place legislation very much along the lines of what passed the House of Representatives late last night. There will be an opportunity to support the kind of commonsense reform I have been talking about, which passed the House last night, when the Interior appropriations bill comes to the floor.

I also appreciate particularly the efforts of Senator Kyl of Arizona who has worked with me on this cause. He was a very active colleague during the debate, and since then has worked with me to try to find a way to advance this cause in the Senate.

We now have a new opportunity to protect the interests of taxpayers and to modernize our energy policy.

Talk about not keeping up with the times. How can you argue in favor of a program that began when oil was $16 a barrel? That is what we are dealing with. We are subsidizing the price of this commodity at a time when it hovers around $70 a barrel using a program that began decades ago when the price of oil was $16 a barrel. It makes no sense.

I am going to be back on this floor at the first possible opportunity to see if it is possible, on a bipartisan basis, to accomplish what I and Senator Kyl were not able to do on a bipartisan basis a couple of weeks ago. I hope in the Senate there will be a new interest in saving our taxpayers' money and promoting fiscal responsibility by reining in further royalty relief for oil companies. We ought to stipulate that if the price goes down, or America faces some kind of supply disruption, we could revisit it. But until then, we ought to roll back this oil company royalty relief and save our citizens' hard-earned taxpayer dollars for more worthy causes.

Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I wish to say to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi that I am certainly not interested in class warfare. But what I am interested in is giving all Americans a fair chance to accumulate wealth. This legislation doesn't do that, and that is why I am opposed to it.

My sense is that everybody in our country wants to do well. Everybody aspires to be well off. Everybody wants to be able to get ahead. Yet that is not possible in many respects because of our Tax Code.

The American people just finished the annual ordeal of doing their taxes. This spring, Warren Buffet, the second wealthiest person in the United States, paid a lower tax rate than his receptionist. But under this bill, that receptionist isn't going to get much of anything.

Senator Lott made a point with respect to the next tax bill. We are going to have another bill, Senator Lott said. But the bottom line is the oil companies get their boost in this bill today. What Senator Lott and others have said is maybe sometime down the road we will start talking about middle-class folks.

I think we have to give everybody in this country the chance to accumulate wealth. We have to do more than hand out gusher giveaways to a fortunate few.

That is why I have introduced the Fair Flat Tax Act that gives everybody in our country the opportunity to accumulate wealth.

So we are clear on this oil issue, I want the Senate to understand some of the history of it.

On November 9, 2005, the CEOs of the major oil companies came to a joint Senate hearing of the Energy and Commerce Committees. I asked them then--it had never been asked in a public forum--whether they agreed with the President's statement that ``with $55 oil we don't need incentives for oil and gas companies to explore.'' The CEOs of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Conoco, Phillips, and BP-Shell for the first time agreed that the tax breaks which had been provided in the Energy bill weren't necessary.

Having heard that statement, I said I want to begin, on a bipartisan basis, to start working with colleagues in the Finance Committee to scale back these tax breaks that, to his credit, the President of the United States said aren't even necessary. I began to work with the distinguished Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus, and the Chair of our committee, Senator Grassley, to try to start rolling back those tax breaks. It was a very modest step that was taken. Our committee repealed one of the tax breaks that dealt with what are called geological and geophysical drilling expenses. But we got it passed, and for the first time in 20 years, the Senate Finance Committee--I think Senator Lott was even there that day--a tax break that the oil companies had gotten was taken away. Repealing that tax break would have saved about $1 billion. It certainly is not everything that is needed to deal with these exploding deficits but a solid step in the right direction.

You then have a conference between the Senate and the House. At a time of record profits, at a time of record prices, this bipartisan amendment to make a modest reduction in the kind of tax breaks that the President said are not needed when oil is over $55 a barrel pretty much disappeared. It was cut by more than 50 percent.

I say to my good friend from Mississippi that I can't accept a double standard where the oil companies get their tax breaks today--they get them right now--and yet, the Senate will come back and maybe sometime down the road start talking about relief for the middle class.

I want to work with the Senator from Mississippi. He and I have worked together on many occasions. That was why I felt that the bipartisan agreement I got in the original Senate bill was so important. But what I can't accept is a double standard, where you have the gusher giveaways today on the oil side and then we hear--as we heard on the floor of the Senate--we will come back with another bill at a another time and maybe at that point we can talk about tax relief for middle-class folks.

Another comment was made that I want to highlight about former President Ronald Reagan who, of course, is revered and respected by all. The last thing President Reagan did, to his credit, in the tax area is he worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, with former Senator from New Jersey, Bill Bradley; the former chair

of the Ways and Mean Committee in the House, Dan Rostenkowski, on overhauling the Tax Code.

One of the steps that they agreed on is we were not going to hit the cops who walk the beat with a higher tax rate than somebody who is out investing, say, in Google stock.

We had a bipartisan agreement back in 1986 that we weren't going to discriminate against wages. We weren't in this country going to say that the people who work hard and play by the rules and make their money from wages are going to get hammered.

What the Senator from Mississippi said I found very interesting with respect to Ronald Reagan because what Ronald Reagan embraced in 1986 is exactly what I am calling for in my Fair Flat Tax Act. That is an approach that says we are in it together. We are all going to be able to accumulate wealth. Everybody is going to have a chance to get ahead. Everybody who aspires for a better life for themselves and their families would have an opportunity to do it under the Fair Flat Tax Act.

They sure don't under this bill with those oil gusher giveaways right now.

We have been told that sometime in the future, we will come back to talk about middle-class folks, and we will have a discussion about their needs and what they hope for their families sometime. This is one other area where, again, I have a little bit of a difference of opinion with my friend from Mississippi. He has talked about the fact that corporate profits are up, revenue is coming in. Of course, we are glad to see all of that. But the reality today is this is the first time in decades when corporate profits are up and productivity is up--both trends we like to see--that middle-class people are seeing their wages stagnant. The middle-class folks are not enjoying the fruits of these benefits of additional revenue. Again, I want our corporations to do well. I want to see the incredible improvements in productivity. What I think every Member of the Senate ought to be talking about is that not all Americans are in a position to enjoy these developments. That is why any time when I go home and have a community meeting, almost all of the issues raised by my constituents have the second word ``bill.'' They ask about their gas bill or medical bill or mortgage bill or tax bill.

That is why I want to work with Senator Lott on a bipartisan basis so that when we have an expansion of corporate profits, when we see an increase in productivity, the middle-class person can get ahead as well. We are not seeing that today.

In fact, the Federal Reserve said the other day that, for all practical purposes, over the last 5 years, the net worth of middle- class folks has hardly moved. What I want to do is what Ronald Reagan and Bill Bradley and others did back in 1986--make changes in the Tax Code so that everybody has the opportunity to accumulate wealth.

I wrote a bill, the Fair Flat Tax Act, which does that.

In fact, I am saying this to Senator Lott because I would love having a chance to work with him.

I took the same brackets that Ronald Reagan did. I chose the exact same tax brackets that Ronald Reagan did for my Fair Flat Tax Act. It is an indication that if we can have a bipartisan effort, as we saw two decades ago before the 14,000 changes in the Tax Code since 1986, we could see once again Democrats and Republicans coming together to continue the trend toward expanded corporate profits and corporate productivity, but we would not be leaving the middle-class person behind.

That is what is so unfortunate about what has happened. My proposal allows us to save about $100 billion over the next 5 years. By contrast, the tax legislation before the Senate increases the deficit with more tax cuts that aren't paid for.

In terms of tax compliance, you can go to my web site, wyden.senate.com to see my simplified 1040. People at Money Magazine were able to complete this form in just 15 minutes. But this year, Americans spent more complying with the Tax Code than the government has spent on higher education. Is that what we want? Is that our vision of tax reform? I don't think so.

I think we want to build on the kind of bipartisan effort we had in 1986. We had a revered Republican President, Ronald Reagan, who has been cited on the floor today, coming together with Democrats in both the Senate and the House. We were able to do something that allowed us to grow the economy and also let middle-class folks get ahead.

Is it right that the cops who guard this wonderful institution pay a higher tax rate on their wages than Warren Buffett does as the second wealthiest person in our country? I don't want to soak anyone. I want everyone to be able to get ahead. I want everyone to be able to accumulate wealth.

What we have been told under this tax bill is that the oil companies get theirs today, but we will have some other day, some other time, some other opportunity to talk about the interests of the middle class. That is not fair to the people of this country. We have said we are all in it together. We should not have a double standard with the powerful getting theirs today and working families having to wait for another time. That is not right.

While we are, for example, putting a little patch on the alternative minimum tax in this legislation, and I am glad to see that--the crushing costs of this tax are not being addressed. My fair flat tax legislation abolishes the alternative minimum tax altogether. That is what we ought to do before we see this thing ramp up and up and up, engulfing millions of middle-class folks who end up having to pay their taxes twice.

I will wrap up with one last point. In this legislation, as we look at the tax cuts being offered in the bill to a fortunate few, we are seeing in the legislation that those who have crafted the bill are taking the very money Senator Baucus and I have sought in order to keep rural schools open, something Senator Lott and a number of colleagues on the other side have been with us on a bipartisan basis. Senator Baucus and I asked, are we going to sell off hundreds of thousands of acres of our public lands in order to pay for the rural schools? We did not think that made any sense. So we said we are going to go to the drawing board. We are going to come up with an alternative. We did that. We said we were going to keep money from going to tax dodgers, make sure they paid what was owed, and to make sure the federal government honors our commitments to rural schools, rural schools in Oregon, in Mississippi, and all across the country.

It is possible, as Ronald Reagan and Democrats did in 1986, to make the Tax Code simpler, flatter, and fairer, and allow us to grow our economy and do right by the middle class. The legislation I have introduced, the Fair Flat Tax Act, is a starting point for the debate. We ought to understand, certainly on the Committee on Finance where I have the honor to serve with Senator Lott, that there is a lot of give and take in a tax debate.

What I do know is the bill that the Senate will be voting on before too long does not give all Americans the opportunity to accumulate wealth. That is why I must oppose it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before she leaves the floor, I want to express my thanks to the distinguished Senator from Maine for working so closely with me on health care issues. I expect that before long Senator Snowe and I will be offering our bipartisan amendment to lift the restriction on Medicare that bars Medicare from bargaining to hold down health care costs. Senator Snowe and I have worked on this for over 3 years. We recently got 54 votes in the Senate to win passage of this bipartisan effort. I thank her for all the good work she is doing in the health care field and look forward to when she offers our bipartisan amendment before too long and to prosecuting this cause on behalf of senior citizens and taxpayers alike.

Mr. President and colleagues, no other health policy in America is more objectionable to the people of this country than preventing Medicare from bargaining to hold down health care costs.

This restriction that bars Medicare from bargaining to hold down health costs simply defies common sense. The restriction that bars Medicare from bargaining to hold down health costs is contrary to what goes on in the private sector of this country every single day. It certainly is contrary to the needs of this program and the taxpayers of this country when we see the Federal budget deficit exploding every time we turn around.

It seems to me that to have Medicare actually barred from bargaining to hold down prescription costs simply defies the sensible approaches that we have always taken in holding down health costs. That approach is to use your bargaining power and the capacity to argue on behalf of large numbers of people. That is using marketplace forces to really make a difference.

The way Medicare is buying prescription drugs under this program is like somebody going to Costco and buying toilet paper one roll at a time. Nobody would ever go shopping that way. Certainly when steel companies, auto companies, any major manufacturing concerns first sit down with a vendor, they ask: What kind of deal will you give me on the basis of the large volume of this product that I am going to be purchasing? Not Medicare. Medicare won't do what everyone else does all across this country every single day.

It is especially important that Medicare use this bargaining power, given what the American Association of Retired Persons has found recently in a report they released to us on the cost of prescription drugs. The AARP released a report in February of 2006 that found brand name medications most commonly used by older people rose almost twice the rate of inflation in other areas of health care.

So here is a chance to actually save money for senior citizens and taxpayers. We can especially expect to see savings when you have single-source drugs for which there is absolutely no competition. There are concrete cases where the Federal Government says we are not going to allow price controls, we are not going to allow the establishment of a one-size-fits-all formulary, but we are going to say that the Government is going to be able to bargain, and that approach will make a real difference.

I know some colleagues think any effort by the Government to allow bargaining to hold down the cost of medicine will lead to price controls. The amendment which Senator Snowe and I expect to file before long is very clear. It does not permit price setting or the creation of a formulary. All it says is the Federal Government, and in effect the seniors of this country, would be able to go into the market and use their clout just like any other big purchaser could to hold down the cost of medicine using marketplace forces.

As colleagues consider this particular approach I hope--I know the distinguished President of the Senate has a great interest in pharmaceuticals and prescription drugs--that colleagues will look at what Senator Snowe and I advocate. In that amendment, on page 3, lines 2 through 8 make it clear that we are opposed to price controls. We have continually tried to address this. We are not in favor of price controls. We are not in favor of establishing a one-size-fits-all formulary or instituting a uniform price structure of any kind. All we are saying is that the Federal Government ought to have a

chance to do some hard-nosed bargaining the way everybody else does to hold down the cost of prescription drugs.

Secretary Tommy Thompson, former Secretary of Health and Human Services, said that the one power he wanted as he left office and was denied by the Congress was the opportunity to negotiate when necessary to hold down the cost of prescription drugs.

This amendment would ensure that the prescription drug benefit is sustainable without interfering with marketplace forces and would simply say that the Federal Government could leverage the marketplace just as any other big buyer of a product does.

To date, millions of seniors have enrolled in this program and, of course, they are realizing some savings on their prescription drugs. We are glad to see that, but it has come about primarily through the infusion of taxpayer money.

What I and Senator Snowe would like to do is bring about some savings--not just by pouring more and more taxpayer money into this program but by using marketplace forces to protect the interests of seniors and our taxpayers.

Prohibiting Medicare from negotiating for drug prices was an overreach. I know of no other industry in the United States that has power like this. We don't see any other industry that does business with the Federal Government in which discussions and negotiations with the Federal Government is specifically barred. Everybody else has to sit down across the table from the Government representing the interests of our taxpayers and get into the nuts and bolts of negotiating the best deal for a particular group of Americans. We need to end this special treatment, this favoritism, this unwarranted preference that only the prescription drug industry has and give our Government the bargaining power that is needed so that seniors and taxpayers can be protected through marketplace forces.

Some who are opposed to what Senator Snowe and I want to do have said that we are already seeing some negotiations. Of course, that is true. Having voted for this program and wanting to see it work--I have welts on my back to show for that--I am pleased that we are seeing some discussion among health plans and others. But I think we will see a whole lot more opportunity to contain costs and contain them through marketplace forces if we untie the hands of the Secretary, as the previous Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, sought to do. I believe we ought to take every possible step to save every possible nickel to protect seniors and taxpayers, and lifting this absurd restriction on Medicare bargaining power will do just that.

I cannot for the life of me conceive of a rational reason Medicare should not have the same power to negotiate just the way other smart shoppers do across this country. Every smart shopper in the private sector--every single one--wants the kind of opportunity that I and Senator Snowe are advocating.

I don't know of any private entity, whether it is a timber company in my home State or a big auto company or anybody else who doesn't sit down across the bargaining table and ask, what are we going to do to work something out that reflects the fact that I am going to be buying a lot of something? Why shouldn't Medicare, if it believes it is warranted, have that authority in effect as a standby?

Senator Snowe and I have been crystal clear in saying that there is a difference between negotiating and bargaining and price controls and uniform formularies. We would say to our colleagues: Look at our proposal just as we did in the one that received 54 votes recently. We spell it out. We lay it out on page 3 of our amendment, lines 2 through 8. We stipulate no price controls, no uniform formulary, no particular kind of one-size-fits-all price structure in any way.

I would like to, along with Senator Snowe, offer a market-based, comprehensive cost containment to help hold down the cost of prescription drugs in our country.

I am glad we are discussing Medicare this week. I think it is high time. I tell colleagues that no other health policy in America is more objectionable than the one that prevents Medicare from bargaining to hold down health care costs. It is time to inject some common sense into the Medicare drug benefit. Giving Medicare bargaining power to millions of senior citizens through Medicare is economics 101. If it is important to the seniors of this country, it is important to taxpayers.

We expect to bring a bipartisan proposal to the floor of the Senate this week. We all know we could sure use some bipartisanship around here at this critical time. I hope colleagues will, as they did a few weeks ago, show strong bipartisan support for our proposal. If we are serious about reining in health costs, and the American people say it is at the top of their agenda, you have to lift this restriction that bars Medicare from bargaining. We expect to be filing the bipartisan Snowe-Wyden amendment before long.

We hope, as we did on the last occasion when we voted on this, we will have a strong majority in the Senate in support of a commonsense, practical way to protect senior citizens who are buying prescription drugs and are taxpayers at the same time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Baucus, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns and fellows be granted floor privileges during consideration of S. 1955: Leona Cutler, David Schwartz, Diedra Henry-Spires, Britt Sandler, Tiffany Smith, Tom Louthan, and Christal Edwards.