Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am hopeful that shortly the Senate will be voting on a measure that will take a very significant step forward by bringing sunshine and public accountability to the Senate.

If you walk the streets of this country and ask someone what a hold is in the Senate, I don't think you will get 1 out of 100 people who will have any idea what you are talking about. But the fact of the matter is, a hold in the Senate is the ability to block a piece of legislation, block a nomination from being even discussed in the Senate. As a result of a hold, the Senate will not even get a peek at a topic that may involve millions of our citizens, billions of dollars, and affect the quality of life of citizens in every corner of the land.

It would be one thing if the Senator who exercises this extraordinary tool--this tool that carries so much power with it--if that Senator would exercise the tool in public and could be held accountable. Unfortunately, holds are now placed in secret. They are done behind closed doors. The sponsor of a piece of legislation will not even know about it. It seems to me a Senate that is serious about lobbying reform absolutely must stop doing so much of its important business in secret, behind closed doors.

I will offer later in the day, I hope, with Senator Grassley, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Salazar, an amendment to bring a bit of sunshine to the Senate. It is an amendment that would not abolish the hold. Senators' rights would be fully protected. Senator Collins is in the Senate, and as a result of the colloquy we had several weeks ago, this legislation also protects the Senator's right to be consulted on a piece of legislation. Certainly, that is something all Members feel is important. If there are bills that affect a Senator's State or that they have a great interest in, that Senator would have an opportunity to study the legislation and to reflect on what it means.

What we say in this bipartisan amendment is when a Senator digs in, when a Senator plans to exercise this extraordinary power, the power to block a bill or a nomination from ever being heard, we are saying that Senator has got to be held publicly accountable. What we require is that a Senator who exercises a hold would have to so state in the Congressional Record. They could still use their procedural rights to make sure they have a chance to oppose the legislation and to oppose it strongly, but they would be identified as the person who was so objecting.

The intelligence reauthorization bill is now being prevented from coming to this Senate as a result of a secret hold.

A lot of Senators give lengthy and eloquent speeches about fighting terrorism, but now a bill that is vital to national security is being held up in secret. It has been held up for months and months as a result of this secret hold. That ought to change.

Certainly, it ought to change if Senators are serious about lobbying reforms because one of the best ways for lobbyists to work their will is to have procedures that help them behind closed doors. That is what the secret hold is all about. It is written nowhere in the Senate rules, but it has become one of the most significant and powerful tools a Senator can exercise. It is done without any public accountability at all.

There has been a bit of irony in the last couple of days about this legislation. I thought it was going to come up already, given the fact that we had come back from the recess. I was under the impression that would be the first order of business. But we could not get to the bipartisan measure to abolish secret holds because, lo and behold, there was a secret hold on an amendment to try to get the Senate to do its business in public. That pretty much says it all. Not only do we have secret holds on national security legislation, legislation that would make a real difference in terms of striking a balance between fighting terrorism ferociously and protecting civil liberties, not only do we have national security legislation being held up, but even efforts to bring about basic reforms such as openness and sunshine for the Senate are being held up as a result of this secret procedure.

I emphasize what the change will mean for the Senate. No longer if this change is put in place will staff be able to keep secret from Members an objection; no longer will leadership be the only one to know about an objection; no longer will it be possible for a Senator to be kept in the dark about something they have worked on for years and years. The fact is, Senator Grassley and I have worked on this legislation for a full decade.

Senator Lott, the chairman of the Rules Committee, has been particularly helpful in terms of working with us on this measure. There have been hearings. Senator Byrd, who, of course, knows more about the Senate rules than anyone in the history of this Senate, has been very helpful in terms of giving us background about what we ought to do. This amendment puts the burden on the person who ought to be held publicly accountable: squarely on the shoulders of an objector. The person who exercises a hold will be identified and colleagues can discuss with that person how to move forward in a bipartisan way.

No Senator is going to be stripped of their rights. No Senator is going to be kept from protecting constituents that have serious concerns about legislation. But with the right to stand up for your view and to object to a piece of legislation, there ought to be some responsibility. There ought to be some accountability.

I find it stunning the Senate would even consider lobbying reform without an effort to do its business in public. We have already spent several days on this legislation. Hopefully, it will be completed shortly. It seems to me one of the most obvious reforms that Senators ought to be in favor of, if this Senate is serious about reform, is doing its business in public.

Nowhere in the Senate rules does it say anything about secret holds. Nowhere is it written down that a Senator can exercise this enormous power and do it without any accountability at all.

Senator Grassley and I believe it is time to bring some sunshine for the Senate and for Senators to do the people's business in public. Secret holds have been the bane of the Senate for decades. Back in the 101st Congress, then-majority Bob Dole said:

I have never understood why Republicans put a hold on

Republican nominees. Maybe I will figure it out some day. I

have been working on it. I have not quite understood it.

In that same Congress, former Senator John Glenn observed:

. . . as one hold would come off, there was agreement

another one would be put on, so that no one really had to

identify themselves. The objecting Senator would remain

anonymous. So much for sunshine in the United States Senate.

Those are the words of one of our most respected colleagues, John Glenn, words that I hope Senators will remember later in the day when we will have a chance to vote on a bipartisan amendment to bring some sunlight to the Senate and some openness in the way the Senate conducts the public's business.

When we have important national security legislation held hostage today by a secret hold, that alone says that this Senate needs to change the way it does business. It ought to do its business in the open. It ought to do its business in a way that will hold Senators accountable.

After 10 years, Senator Grassley and I have watched these secret holds block legislation, block nominations in a way that does a disservice to all the people we represent.

We are going to have a chance to end this. We are going to have a chance to ensure that while Senators can exercise their rights and debate topics that they feel strongly about, they can also be held publicly accountable.

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

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time is available on my side? My understanding is we have 10 minutes.

Mr. President, it is my desire to yield the first 3 minutes to Senator Inhofe, the next 3 minutes to Senator Grassley, and then I will

speak. I thank my friend from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I yield to Senator Lott.

Mr. President, I think Senator Lott, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Grassley have said it very well. This amendment is about a simple proposition; and that is, the Senate ought to do its most important business in public, where every Senator can be held accountable. We have offered this bipartisan amendment to eliminate secret holds on the lobbying reform legislation for the same reason Willy Sutton robbed banks: Banks are where the money is. And secret holds are where the power is.

Secret holds are one of the most powerful weapons available to lobbyists. I expect that each of our offices has gotten at least one call asking if the office would put a secret hold on a bill or nominee in order to kill it without any public debate, and without a lobbyist's fingerprints anywhere.

Getting a Senator to put a secret hold on a bill is like hitting the lobbyist jackpot. Not only is the Senator's identity protected, but so is the lobbyist's. A secret hold lets a lobbyist play both sides of the street and gives lobbyists a victory for their clients without alienating potential or future clients.

In my view, secret holds are a stealth extension of the lobbying world. It would be particularly ironic if the Senate were to claim it was adopting lobbying reform legislation without doing away with what is one of the most powerful tools available to a lobbyist.

This has been a bipartisan effort. It has gone on for literally a decade. Senator Lott, to his credit, tried a voluntary approach with Senator Daschle. We want to emphasize--for example, the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, was involved in this--that this in no way eliminates the right of a Senator to have a consult, to have the opportunity to look at legislation, to review it when it comes out of committee. A Senator can seek that. In my mind, a consult is similar to a yellow light that says proceed with caution. A hold, on the other hand, is similar to a red light, a stop light. It is when a Senator digs in and says they are going to do everything they possibly can to block a piece of legislation from going forward.

I want to protect Senators' rights, but Senators' rights need to be accompanied by responsibilities. We are talking about legislation that can involve billions of dollars, millions of our citizens, and the public's business ought to be done in public.

What this amendment does is ban a staff hold, the so-called rolling hold where the hold is passed secretly from Senator to Senator. And when a Senator exercises the power of a hold to deal with an issue that is important to them, in the future, they will be held publicly accountable.

This is long overdue. Senator Dole, when he was majority leader, spoke out on this, more eloquently than perhaps any of us are doing today. Senator Grassley, myself, Senator Inhofe, Senator Lott believe that it is time to bring sunshine to the Senate and for the Senate to do the people's business in public. I can't think of a more appropriate place to do it than on the lobbying reform bill we are working on today.

I urge my colleagues to pass the amendment and to bring some sunshine to the Senate.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Senate has been working away at a lobbying reform bill, which is a good start at curbing the influence of special interests, but that alone is not enough. Everyone knows the root of the problem is money. Money is the oil that runs the engine of a viable campaign for office.

Every single one of my colleagues and I are in a perpetual campaign. Whether you were born a multi-millionaire or come from more humble origins, you are chasing money. Senators are elected or reelected on a Tuesday, sleep in on Wednesday and by Thursday they are back on the phone, dialing supporters for contributions to fuel the next campaign.

I do not believe Senators should have to operate this way. I believe the people send Senators to the Capitol to resolve their and the Nation's problems; I don't believe they send us to the United States Senate to spend all our time calling donors for support.

Senators are here to do the people's business, and that's why Senator Graham and I are introducing the first bipartisan bill that would let Senators focus on what the voters of our States sent us here to do. This would be the first serious step toward shutting the door on the 6- year stockpiling of campaign contributions. Our bill would amend the Senate rules to prohibit incumbent Senators from raising money until 18 months prior to their re-election. An exception to this ban would be triggered if an opposing candidate or group targeted a Senator with more than $100,000 in paid advertisements. Such a targeted campaign would free an incumbent Senator from the prohibition on soliciting contributions. Likewise, the ban would not apply to contributions to retire campaign debt.

I have long admired the system used in many European countries for keeping campaigns focused on a short but intense period. That would require an amendment to the Constitution, an avenue that time and again has proved too difficult to navigate. Short of a Constitutional amendment I believe the new approach Senator Graham and I are offering could prove viable.

Campaign finance reform is much like nuclear disarmament: everyone is for it but few are willing to take the first step unilaterally. I believe that those of us who are already here in the Senate bear the responsibility to take that first step.

Our proposal aims not just to treat the symptoms of scandal and corruption; it aims to cure the overall disease by going after the endless race for money in politics. Our bipartisan approach enjoys the support of a number of groups, including Common Cause, Democracy21, US PIRG and Public Citizen.

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

Mr. President, the Senate has been working away at a lobbying reform bill, which is a good start at curbing the influence of special interests, but that alone is not enough. Everyone knows the root of the problem is money. Money is the oil that runs the engine of a viable campaign for office.

Every single one of my colleagues and I are in a perpetual campaign. Whether you were born a multi-millionaire or come from more humble origins, you are chasing money. Senators are elected or reelected on a Tuesday, sleep in on Wednesday and by Thursday they are back on the phone, dialing supporters for contributions to fuel the next campaign.

I do not believe Senators should have to operate this way. I believe the people send Senators to the Capitol to resolve their and the Nation's problems; I don't believe they send us to the United States Senate to spend all our time calling donors for support.

Senators are here to do the people's business, and that's why Senator Graham and I are introducing the first bipartisan bill that would let Senators focus on what the voters of our States sent us here to do. This would be the first serious step toward shutting the door on the 6- year stockpiling of campaign contributions. Our bill would amend the Senate rules to prohibit incumbent Senators from raising money until 18 months prior to their re-election. An exception to this ban would be triggered if an opposing candidate or group targeted a Senator with more than $100,000 in paid advertisements. Such a targeted campaign would free an incumbent Senator from the prohibition on soliciting contributions. Likewise, the ban would not apply to contributions to retire campaign debt.

I have long admired the system used in many European countries for keeping campaigns focused on a short but intense period. That would require an amendment to the Constitution, an avenue that time and again has proved too difficult to navigate. Short of a Constitutional amendment I believe the new approach Senator Graham and I are offering could prove viable.

Campaign finance reform is much like nuclear disarmament: everyone is for it but few are willing to take the first step unilaterally. I believe that those of us who are already here in the Senate bear the responsibility to take that first step.

Our proposal aims not just to treat the symptoms of scandal and corruption; it aims to cure the overall disease by going after the endless race for money in politics. Our bipartisan approach enjoys the support of a number of groups, including Common Cause, Democracy21, US PIRG and Public Citizen.

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

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I have no intention of objecting, I want to clarify what the distinguished chairman and ranking member said--and they have been very helpful. My understanding is that we go to the Conrad amendment after that, the avian flu amendment. It is my understanding per the agreement between the chairman and ranking minority member that after the Conrad amendment has been discussed, we would next go to the Snowe-Wyden amendment.

Is that the understanding of the chairman and the ranking minority member?

Mr. President, is there a time limit for these amendments?

That would mean that somewhere in the vicinity of a half hour or 40 minutes or so we would deal with it.

Without being argumentative, it is the Snowe-Wyden amendment, but we are talking about the same thing.

I thank both the chairman and the ranking minority member.

Will the Senator yield?

I appreciate that. What Senator Snowe and I want to do is not spend any taxpayers' money; we want to save some taxpayers' money. I appreciate that. I was here about 45 minutes ago thinking that was the point where we would be in the queue. When Chairman Grassley gets here, we would appreciate the chance to discuss our bipartisan amendment.

Madam President, with the consent of both sides, I call up amendment No. 3004, the Snowe-Wyden amendment.

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

Madam President, we all have seen the frustrations and the heartache that senior citizens have experienced over these last few months as the prescription drug legislation has gone into effect. Certainly, some folks are being helped, and we are glad to see it. But in order to really make a prescription drug benefit work, we have to contain the costs of medicine. That is

what Senator Snowe and I are trying to do. We are trying to do it by using marketplace forces, not Government but marketplace forces to hold down the cost of medicine.

A majority of the Senate is now on record as favoring this proposal. A majority of the Senate voted for it last fall before all the headaches and the frustrations that seniors have experienced. So in my view, the case is a lot stronger today than it even was last fall when a majority of the Senate voted for it.

I think that is the reason the American Association of Retired Persons has written to the Senate saying they are in support of the bipartisan Snowe-Wyden legislation. They have something they call their Rx Watchdog group. It is an effort by AARP--a very laudable effort--to monitor the cost of medicine. They report that the cost of medicine is going up twice the rate of inflation.

Of course, we know older people use more medicines than the rest of the population. It would be one thing if people were trying to go about doing this in an arbitrary kind of fashion, using a one-size-fits-all Government approach or price controls. That is not what the bipartisan Snowe-Wyden legislation does.

We want to be very clear, as we offer this legislation, that at line 13 and line 14 of this amendment, there is a statutory prohibition on price controls as an effort to hold down the cost of medicine.

Let me repeat that to the Senate. The bipartisan Snowe-Wyden legislation at line 13 and line 14 includes a bipartisan statutory ban on price setting as an effort to control the cost of medicine. This is about using marketplace forces to hold down the cost of these drugs that are clobbering our older people.

I don't see how anyone can oppose this amendment and, in fact, Secretary Tommy Thompson, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, said in his last press conference that he just wished he had this authority. He wished he had the kind of authority that is in this amendment. It doesn't mean it is going to be used all the time, but it means it is a tool, an opportunity like we have every single day in the private sector of our economy to hold down the cost of medicine.

The way Medicare is going to go out and buy these prescription drugs reminds me of somebody going to COSTCO and buying one role of toilet paper at a time. Nobody would go shopping that way. Everybody who is in a position to do so exercises their marketplace clout, the opportunity to be a savvy shopper, the opportunity to say I am going to purchase a lot of something. I want to get my money's worth.

I just hope the Senate this time, when we have seen all the frustrations older people are having, uses this chance to do something about it.

We know lots of lobbyists are against this amendment. Last week we had a discussion on lobbying reform. I can tell colleagues in the Senate that probably the biggest trophy on a lobbyist's wall is to defeat the bipartisan Snowe-Wyden amendment, but that doesn't make it right. What we need to do is what is right for older people and at a time when millions of seniors are walking on an economic tightrope, balancing their food costs against their fuel costs, and their fuel costs against their medical bills, this is a chance to use marketplace forces to hold down the cost of medicine.

For older people, there are no costs going up like prescription drugs. Some are saying: We can get these cost savings without the Snowe-Wyden amendment. A lot of those people are the same ones who said that the rollout of the prescription drug program would go perfectly. We say that certainly has not been the case.

Now there is a chance to go home at this break and say you actually moved to do something important that older people are talking about at their kitchen table every single day, and that is the cost of medicine.

I don't know of any special interest group in this country that got the kind of sweetheart arrangement in this legislation that the pharmaceutical sector has. There is no other group in this country, no other group that got a specific carve-out so we couldn't use marketplace forces to hold down the cost of medicine. It is really staggering that one group was singled out to be immune from the forces of the marketplace.

Secretary Thompson thought it made no sense. It certainly makes no sense right now when older people are being clobbered by the cost of medicine and finding it hard to secure the benefits of this program. In fact, my sense is one of the reasons a lot of older people have been reluctant to sign up is they can't see any cost savings in the program.

Here is a chance to generate some real cost savings. That is why AARP indicated its support for the amendment. That is why Secretary Thompson said he wished he had the authority. That is why every timber company, steel company, and auto company in the country uses its marketplace clout to hold down the cost of medicine. Fifty-one Senators voted for it last fall before we saw all the older people have the problems they have had over the last couple of months.

I hope colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, will support this amendment. Senator Snowe and I have worked on this now for 3 years. We said we were going to work on it at the time the original legislation was voted on. AARP, like Senator Snowe, like myself, like Chairman Grassley, for whom I have enormous respect--we are all in support of the original legislation. I still have the welts on my back to show for my support for the legislation. But as AARP says, don't miss the opportunity to improve on this legislation which we can do by using marketplace forces.

I urge colleagues, particularly in light of some of what has been written, to take a look at line 13 and line 14 of the amendment which specifically prohibits the use of price controls under this amendment as a tool to hold down the cost of medicine.

Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, Senator Snowe will close this afternoon for our bipartisan amendment, but I want to highlight a couple of points. There is a reason that AARP strongly supports the Snowe-Wyden amendment. There is a reason that Secretary Thompson, before he left the Health and Human Services Department, said he wanted this authority, and that is this is just plain common sense.

Everybody else in the marketplace who is in a position to use their clout does it but not Medicare.

I want to set the record straight on a couple of comments that were made by my friend, the chairman of the Finance

Committee. Again, at lines 13 and 14 of the bipartisan Snowe-Wyden amendment, in addition to the prohibition against price controls, there is a prohibition against a uniform formulary. So we are using all of the same forces in the marketplace of the private sector under this amendment that go on all across the land today. There are no price controls. There is no uniform formulary. For colleagues who want to see the language, it is at line 13 and line 14 of the Snowe-Wyden amendment.

Let us have some practical, smart shopping with respect to this program, where the costs are going into the stratosphere. I don't know of anybody in the United States who would shop the way Medicare is shopping today for prescription drugs. It would be one thing if it was working.

AARP supports this amendment because the cost of medicine is rising twice the rate of inflation. So if you want to say to the seniors when you go home next week that you took some practical steps to control the costs of medicine, you will support the Snowe-Wyden amendment. If you think everything is working fine right now--and we don't--then I guess you oppose us. But I hope colleagues will, as they did last November, a majority of them, support us because now they can make a difference. They can make a difference for older people. They can make a difference for taxpayers. I hope my colleagues, when Senator Snowe wraps up for our side this afternoon, will support this bipartisan amendment because it is just plain shopping smart at a crucial time when older people need that approach to hold down the cost of health care.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I join with the other Senators in expressing my sadness tonight as to Senator Dan Inouye's loss. I think all of us see Senator Inouye as the gold standard of caring. He has always cared about his constituents. He has always cared about his colleagues. But, most of all, he has cared about his family, and he threw himself with every ounce of his energy and strength into caring for his spouse who has passed today.

It is important for the Senate to note that in addition to his caring, what Senator Inouye is best known for is his quiet sense of dignity. This is a place where it can get loud and clamorous at times, and what Dan Inouye has always done is to try to always take the quiet path, to lower the decibel level, to try to get Senators to keep a perspective. That is why he always put his family first.

There are many fine people in the Senate, but when we think about our colleague Dan Inouye tonight and all he did for his spouse in those last few months, there is no better person, no better colleague, no better friend all of us could have than Dan Inouye. I just wanted to, along with my colleagues, let him know he is in my thoughts and prayers tonight.

Mr. President, on this difficult evening, I wish to take just a few minutes to talk about the budget.

Last Congress, Senator Snowe and I, on a bipartisan basis, saw 51 Members of the Senate support our bipartisan legislation to lift the restriction on Medicare so that program could bargain to hold down the cost of medicine. That vote, where a majority of Senators went on record in supporting the effort to hold down the cost of medicine, took place before the program went into effect. It seems to me everything that has happened over the last few months, since a majority of the Senate voted for our bipartisan amendment, supports our case for passing that legislation now.

We will be offering our bipartisan proposal, the Snowe-Wyden amendment, later this week, and I wish to take just a few minutes to outline why it is so important.

The American Association of Retired Persons says it all in a letter endorsing our bipartisan Snowe-Wyden proposal. I ask unanimous consent that the AARP letter endorsing the Snowe-Wyden legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as AARP notes--and they publish an Rx Watchdog report--they have noted that for the nearly 200 brand-name medications most commonly used by older people, the costs of those medicines have gone up twice the rate of inflation. So all Americans get hit by prescription drug costs. Particularly hard hit are older people, and low-income older people, and people with very big prescription drug bills. As noted by AARP, these seniors are hit more than any other segment of the U.S. population by prescription drug costs.

At a time when the costs of this program and the costs of Government have gone through the stratosphere, one would think the Government would be doing everything possible to hold down costs. Yet, unfortunately, in the original prescription drug legislation, a bizarre restriction was put in place that literally bars the Government from being a smart shopper. Everybody else in this country tries to use their clout in the marketplace to get the best possible deal, but not Medicare--not Medicare, which offers a benefit to more than 30 million older people. They are not using the opportunity to go into the marketplace and hold down the costs.

I compare the Government's approach to buying prescription drugs under Medicare to somebody going into Costco and buying toilet paper one roll at a time. Nobody would shop that way. No savvy shopper would ever give up, even before they walked into the store, the opportunity to hold down the costs. But that is what Medicare is doing, and that is what Senator Snowe and I want to change.

Now, we have seen over the last couple of months older people and their families absolutely up in arms, up in arms about the frustrations of getting this prescription drug program out and usable in a commonsense kind of fashion. It is far too complicated. There are far too many alternatives. Some seniors say that even with a Ph.D. they can't sort it out. But what is especially troubling is at a time when the costs of the program continue to go up and up and up, the Government isn't even taking commonsense steps to hold down the cost of these medicines.

So what Senator Snowe and I have tried to do in a bipartisan effort for going on 3 years now is to make sure that when necessary the Secretary of Health and Human Services can negotiate for the best possible prices of prescription drugs for older people.

Now, this isn't price control. Specifically, our bipartisan amendment stipulates that the authority granted here

cannot be used to set prices or to set a uniform formulary. Nowhere in this amendment is there a call for price controls or anything that can be interpreted as price controls. This is about using marketplace forces. This is about using the market just as millions of Americans do every day to hold down the cost of medicine.

Senator Snowe and I believe one of the most flagrant mistakes in the Medicare law--and both of us voted for that legislation--was to write into law that the Secretary could not have bargaining power under any circumstances at all. We have seen drug prices increase, as AARP has noted, far higher than the rate of inflation. The Wall Street Journal has reported price spikes. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated there can be savings from negotiations in the area of single- source drugs that do not face competition, and suffice it to say, many of the single-source drugs are ones that are commonly used by Medicare patients, such as Lipitor and Zocor and Prevacid.

I will wrap up, Mr. President, with only a couple of additional points because I know my colleague from Washington has been very patient. The authority that Senator Snowe and I seek to grant to the Department of Health and Human Services is the authority that Secretary Thompson at his last press conference as head of the Department of Health and Human Services, said he wished he had. So the last head of that agency, at a time when they were moving to implement the prescription drug law, said specifically he wished he had had this authority.

The last point I would make, Mr. President, is that some have said: Well, seniors are seeing some savings already. If that is the case, we are glad to see it, but it comes about because the basic benefit covers 75 percent of the cost of the drug after the $250 deductible. So the question for the Senate is where are you going to look in order to hold down the cost of this program? Are you going to look at taxpayer subsidies? Are you going to look at marketplace forces? Senator Snowe and I believe that at a time when the costs of Government are soaring and the costs of this prescription drug benefit are soaring, we ought to use commonsense marketplace principles to hold down the cost of medicine, not continue to rely on taxpayer subsidies, and that is what our amendment is all about.

Mr. President and colleagues, I do not know of a single private sector entity, whether it is a timber company in my home State of Oregon, or a big auto company in the Midwest, that when they are buying something in bulk, say: What about the possibility of some discounts? So why shouldn't Medicare ask that question, just to have that authority so as to make marketplace forces work? Why wouldn't we want to assure that there is every possible tool to help seniors hold down the costs of medicine?

We will debate this at greater length in the course of the week. As I noted, Senator Snowe and I received 51 votes, a majority of the Senate, for this legislation before the program went into effect. I would just say to our colleagues tonight, everything that has happened in the last few months suggests that there is an even better case for the bipartisan Snowe-Wyden amendment to hold down the costs of medicine.

Mr. President, with that I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to be recognized for the purpose of having a colloquy with the chairman and ranking minority member, Senator Lott and Senator Dodd.

I thank the Chair.

As the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee knows, Senator Grassley and I have worked for a decade to bring some openness and accountability to the Senate by requiring that when a Senator puts a hold on a major piece of legislation, they would have to disclose it publicly. Senator Grassley and I are ready to go with that bipartisan amendment which we have worked on for a decade. I would simply ask the distinguished chairman of the committee and the ranking minority member what the process is so that Senator Grassley and I can bring forward this bipartisan amendment. I pose my question to the distinguished chairman of the committee.

Would it be acceptable to the distinguished chair of the committee and ranking minority member that I could ask unanimous consent that after you all have completed the bipartisan amendment of the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Pennsylvania, that when you all have completed your business, the Wyden-Grassley amendment come next?

I thank the distinguished chairman and the ranking minority member.

Mr. President, I propose the Wyden-Grassley-Inhofe amendment, No. 2944, which is at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, if you walked down the Main Streets of this country and asked people what a hold was in the U.S. Senate, I think it is fair to say nobody would have any idea what it is you were talking about. In fact, they might hear the world ``hold,'' and they would think it was part of the wrestling championships that are going on across this country right now. But the reason I am on the floor of the Senate today with my distinguished colleague, Senator Grassley, and Senator Inhofe, is that the hold in the Senate, which is the ability to object to a bill or nomination coming before the Senate, is an extraordinary power that a United States Senator has, and a power that can be exercised in secret.

At the end of a congressional session, legislation involving vast sums of money or the very freedoms on which our country relies can die just because of a secret hold in the Senate. At any point in the legislative process, an objection can delay or derail an issue to the point where it can't be effectively considered.

What is particularly unjust about all of this is that it prevents a Senator from being held accountable. I think Members would be incredulous to learn this afternoon that the Intelligence reauthorization bill, a piece of legislation which is vital to our national security, has now been held up for months as a result of a secret hold.

I am going to talk a little bit about the consequences of holding up an Intelligence authorization bill in a moment. But I want to first be clear on what the Wyden-Grassley-Inhofe amendment would do. It would force the Senate to do its business in public, and it would bring the secret holds out of the shadows of the Senate and into the sunshine. Our bipartisan amendment would make a permanent change to the procedures of the Senate to require openness and accountability. We want to emphasize that we are not going to bar Senators from exercising their power to put a hold on a bill or nomination. All we are saying is, a Senator who wants that right should also have a responsibility to the people he or she represents and to the country at large.

Now, to the hold on the Intelligence bill that has been in place for more than 3 months, I think every Member of the Senate would agree that authorizing the intelligence programs of this country is a critical priority for America. Striking the balance between fighting terrorism ferociously and protecting our civil liberties is one of the most important functions of this Senate. The bill that is now being held up as a result of a secret hold, the Intelligence reauthorization bill, has been

reviewed by a number of Senate committees. It was reported by the Intelligence Committee late last September, by the Armed Services Committee last October, and by the Homeland and Governmental Affairs Committee last November.

I particularly commend Chairman Roberts who worked with me on a number of amendments, amendments that I felt strongly about, because this legislation does ensure that there will be accountability and oversight in the Intelligence Committee by establishing a strong inspector general, by requiring that the committees get the documents they need to perform effective oversight over the intelligence community, and by making the heads of the key agencies subject to Senate confirmation.

I think the Senate would particularly want to know if this legislation, the Intelligence reauthorization bill that is held up by a secret hold, does not move forward, it will be the first time since the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was established in 1978 that the Senate has failed to act on an Intelligence reauthorization bill.

What we have is a situation where a single, anonymous Senator has invoked a practice that cannot be found anywhere in the Senate rules and has lodged an objection to a piece of legislation that is critically important to the well-being of America. Senators have often asked Senator Grassley and myself and Senator Inhofe: Where are the examples of these secret holds? Exactly why do you believe your legislation is important? We now have a textbook case of a secret hold that is injurious to America.

For all the talk about earmarks--we have been discussing that here on the Senate floor, as well as the scope of conference, line-item vetoes and the like--I would wager that no weapon is more important and more powerful to each Senator than the ability to stop amendments, legislation, and nominations through secret holds. I believe as U.S. Senators we occupy a position of public trust and that the exercise of the power that has been vested in each of us should be accompanied by public accountability.

I have no quarrel with the use of a hold. I have used them myself on several occasions. But what is offensive to the democratic process is the anonymity, the secrecy, the lack of accountability when a Senator tries to exercise this extraordinary power in secret.

Let me just wrap up, because I see the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee is here, with a quick minute on the history of these efforts. Senator Grassley and I have been at this for almost a decade. The Rules Committee held a hearing on our proposal in the summer of 2003. We worked with Chairman Lott and with the ranking minority member, Senator Dodd, extensively. This is a matter that has been considered at length by colleagues.

Senator Lott knows firsthand about this issue because he has personally spent many hours with me as he has wrestled with it, and in fact tried to set in place some voluntary procedures that would curtail the abuses of the secret hold.

These secret holds have been an embarrassment to the Senate in my view, and they have been an embarrassment for a long time. But I cannot recall an instance where we had a hold, a secret hold on the Intelligence authorization bill at a time when our country is at war. This is a practice that needs to end.

I yield now for the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, as usual, the distinguished Chair of the subcommittee has put her finger on an important distinction. I want to take a second to describe how the legislation addresses it. I think we are of like mind on it. Subsequently, a lot of time was spent by the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee and Senator Dodd and Senator Byrd on this matter.

What the distinguished Chair of the Homeland Security Committee is describing is essentially a consult. For example, a Senator wants to be notified about a bill that is headed for the floor. Very often that comes up, say, when a Senator is in his or her home State and frequently needs to be able to come back, and it takes a day, and they need to be able to review it.

Under the Wyden-Grassley-Inhofe amendment we make very clear it is not our intention to bar those consults. We like to use the word ``consult,'' which is a protected tool for a Senator as opposed to the question of a hold.

I think perhaps another way to clarify it is a consult is sort of like a yellow light. You put up a little bit of caution--that we need a bit of time to take a look at it. A hold is a red light when you are not supposed to go forward. We don't want people to be able to exercise those holds in secret. We think it is fine to have the kind of consult that the distinguished Chair of the Homeland Security Committee has described.

In fact, to ensure that we have this kind of procedure that the Senator seeks, we call for 3 days before an individual has to put in the Congressional Record that they have a hold on a matter.

I think we are clearly in agreement--that the consult is protected, but the secret hold and forcing the Senate to do its business in public is what is going to change.

Mr. President, at this point, after the Senator from Oklahoma has spoken, it would be my intention to very briefly wrap up the case for the Wyden-Grassley-Inhofe amendment. We would yield our time at that point, and we are going to ask for a recorded vote.

Mr. President, it is my intent at this point to wrap up.

I particularly thank the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, who has had a longstanding interest in this subject, for working with Senator Grassley and myself. We do have a bipartisan effort.

The Senator from Oklahoma has highlighted another problem with it, and a lot of Members who served in the other body bumped into this. A lot of these holds over the years have not even been placed by Senators themselves. They have been placed by staff, and Senators go up to each other and try to ask about a matter and it ends up a Senator may not even know about it.

I also see the Senator from Mississippi, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. He spent a lot of hours with me talking about this over the years. Senator Lott, to show his commitment to the cause of openness, has tried repeatedly to get Senators to do this voluntarily. I recall on a number of instances Senator Lott and Senator Daschle met with Senator Grassley and me. We put together a variety of letters and directives to Senators. It still would not come together.

We think you have to make this a permanent change in the Senate procedures, put the burden on the objector rather than on the leadership, as we have done so often in the past, and the leaders would then have to make phone calls. Senator Lott has a wonderful story that he has told me over the years about sitting in phone booths at airports calling Members, trying to figure out who in the world had a hold on something.

I say to colleagues, we have now reached that moment where the Senate has had it up to here with all of the secrecy and practice of doing business in the shadows.

To wrap this up, we are going to have a vote in a few minutes. The Intelligence Authorization bill, a bill that is vital to America's national security, is subject to a secret hold. I don't think anything could make the case for our bipartisan amendment more clearly than the need to move ahead with this country's vital business in intelligence. I have talked to Chairman Roberts about this. He wants that bill to move. It is a bipartisan bill. We have not had a situation since 1978 when we could not move forward on an intelligence bill.

I hope colleagues will finally bring the Senate into the sunshine. This enormous power that each Senator has is one that will continue, but if we can prevail on this vote, it will be one that will be exercised in the sunlight. Each Senator will be held accountable when they assert this particular power.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Wyden-Grassley-Inhofe amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time and I ask for the yeas and nays.

The Senator is absolutely right.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Mississippi. I particularly thank him for his extraordinarily supportive statement and for

all the help he has given me over this decade. It probably would be my preference to have a recorded vote at this time, particularly since I have had the good fortune to have had such a supportive statement from the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Is there a problem with having a recorded vote on the Wyden-Grassley- Inhofe amendment at this time?

Mr. President, just to wrap this up, that is a very fair procedure that the Senator from Mississippi has outlined and we will be happy to accept that.

Mr. President, a headline in today's Wall Street Journal warns consumers that they will soon face a ``pay to play'' Internet where those businesses and consumers who want to continue to see equal content get equal treatment will have to pay more. Rather than let them continue to have the freedom to choose whatever content, applications and services they want, the big network operators want to control the content consumers can access. Allowing the big network operators to discriminate on the Net is bad news for consumers, small businesses, schools, libraries, nonprofits and any other user who enjoys their freedom of access.

That is why today I am proposing legislation that will codify the principle of network neutrality. I want consumers, small businesses and every other Internet user to continue to enjoy tomorrow the full array of content, service and applications they enjoy today.

My legislation, the Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006, will establish the principle of network neutrality by requiring the operators of the network to treat all content on the Internet equally. It will ensure transparency so that everyone can easily determine all rates, terms and conditions for the provision of any communications. Transparency coupled with a complaint process before the Federal Communications Commission will encourage compliance.

This legislation has been developed in consultation with a number of consumer groups and businesses, and I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, a headline in today's Wall Street Journal warns consumers that they will soon face a ``pay to play'' Internet where those businesses and consumers who want to continue to see equal content get equal treatment will have to pay more. Rather than let them continue to have the freedom to choose whatever content, applications and services they want, the big network operators want to control the content consumers can access. Allowing the big network operators to discriminate on the Net is bad news for consumers, small businesses, schools, libraries, nonprofits and any other user who enjoys their freedom of access.

That is why today I am proposing legislation that will codify the principle of network neutrality. I want consumers, small businesses and every other Internet user to continue to enjoy tomorrow the full array of content, service and applications they enjoy today.

My legislation, the Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006, will establish the principle of network neutrality by requiring the operators of the network to treat all content on the Internet equally. It will ensure transparency so that everyone can easily determine all rates, terms and conditions for the provision of any communications. Transparency coupled with a complaint process before the Federal Communications Commission will encourage compliance.

This legislation has been developed in consultation with a number of consumer groups and businesses, and I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, millions of Americans are now going through a paperwork nightmare, trying to complete their taxes. They are trying to find their 1099s and their W-2s and their schedule this and schedule that. They shout across the room: Honey, can you find the copy of the receipt for that copier we bought back in March?

What I am going to do between now and April 15 is highlight some of the ways this Tax Code gratuitously complicates the lives of all our citizens--middle-income folks, low-income folks, and the affluent. I am going to be pointing out specific provisions in the Tax Code and try to describe how it does not have to be this way. We do not have to have a ``deadwood'' tax bureaucracy, where we now have had more than 14,000 changes. That comes to something akin to three for every working day in the last 20 years.

Our citizens are going to spend more this year complying with the Tax Code than this country spends on higher education. We are going to spend $140 billion complying with the needless kind of bureaucracy that I am going to describe this morning. It is my intent between now and April 15 to discuss this. I am going to start today with the alternative minimum tax, which is true water torture for middle-class folks who basically have to figure out two taxes, their taxes and the alternative minimum tax. There is a whole set of complicated procedures here. After I complete this week's presentation on the alternative minimum tax, it is my intention to go next to the earned income tax, which is also mindlessly complicated.

Then I intend to focus on a number of the provisions for those who are very affluent that strike me, again, as defying common sense in how they are written.

Today, I want to begin by focusing on the alternative minimum tax. It is, of course, a crushing tax for millions of middle-income people, folks who definitely do not consider themselves fat cats. Across this country, 3.6 million taxpayers were impacted by the alternative minimum tax this year. The number is expected to rise to over 19 million by 2006 unless the Congress acts this year.

The form that you use for the alternative minimum tax is form 6251. The first line sums up what all of this has come to. The first line says:

If filing Schedule A (form 1040), line 41 (minus any amount

on form 8914, line 2) and go to line 2. Otherwise enter the

amount from form 1040, line 38 (minus any amount on form

8914, line 2) and go to line 7. (If less than zero, enter as

a negative amount.)

I think it is pretty obvious that what I have read is, for all practical purposes, incomprehensible. You would have to have a Ph.D. in economics. What it means is that in order to fill out form 6251 for your minimum tax you have to fill out not just form 1040 but also form 8914. How much time is that going to add to tax preparation? What about trying to understand form 8914, for those who may have to fill it out?

Are people in this country going to have to become CPAs to fill out this tax requirement that affects millions of middle-class people? I bring this up because it does not have to be this way.

I would like to now post the alternative that I have developed in my Fair Flat Tax Act, S. 1927. On line 1, instead of all the mumbo jumbo I read--it is real simple--all you have to state is whether you are single, married, head of a household, qualifying widower.

I filled out my one-page 1040 form that my legislation mandates in about a half hour. That alone is a bit of a revolution in the Senate Finance Committee, or the tax-writing committee in the other body, because it has been a long time since anybody who wrote tax laws could fill out their own returns. I bring this up only by way of saying let's make sure people understand how much deadwood and legal mumbo jumbo and needless complication there is in the Tax Code. That is why I have started today with the burdensome requirements of the alternative minimum tax. But I am going to go on, in the weeks ahead, to a number of other kinds of provisions.

As a result of what I read on the alternative minimum tax, lots of folks simply turn to tax preparers. This year we will spend $140 billion on tax preparation. That is more than the Government spends on higher education. It is pretty obvious why. There were 14,000 changes in the Tax Code since the last major overhaul, three significant changes for every working day in the last 20 years.

What I do in my fair flat tax legislation is simply say to the distinguished Presiding Officer of the Senate, the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma: You take your income from all your sources, you subtract your deductions, you add your credits, add it all up, send it to the IRS, and say: Have a nice day, I am done.

One page, 1040 form--somebody called me about it yesterday and we discussed how long it took me to do it. I mentioned I could do mine in half an hour. They said: Ron, it only took me 15 minutes.

That is what this is all about. I am not sure the Congress understands how this body has permitted this mindless bureaucracy, a bureaucracy that only can be described as deadwood, a bureaucracy that has lost all kind of connection with what the middle class in this country is all about. And I want to change it.

I believe we ought to start tax reform by simplifying the Code. Then let us

change the tax system so that all Americans have the opportunity to climb the ladder of success. One way you do that is to change a set of rates that now have the second richest person in America, Warren Buffett, paying a lower tax rate than his receptionist. The Tax Code discriminates against work.

I am not interested in soaking anybody. I believe in markets, and I believe in creating wealth, but as we saw today where we have very low rates in savings for the middle class, it is because they cannot keep up. Their wages aren't even keeping up with inflation. Their concerns are about those matters where the second word is ``bill''--the tax bill, the medical bill, the gas bill, the heating bill, and the education bill.

We say with my legislation that we are going to end the discrimination against work. We will protect 90 percent of all interest income earned by our citizens--their house, the capital gains they may be able to enjoy if they sell it, their savings accounts, their life insurance. I want us to build a new savings ethic. I do that in this legislation as well. But for the life of me, I can't figure out why we can't get both political parties to get moving on this issue.

The President has an advisory commission. They asked me what I thought about it. I said: Look, I have a one-page 1040 form which will simplify this code for everybody. The President's commission report is a bit longer, but for purposes of Government work, they are pretty close together.

So why not start with simplification? Why not start with the rates I have proposed which I would like to bring to the attention of the Senate? The first bracket of rates in my legislation is 15 percent, the second bracket is 25 percent, and the third bracket is 35 percent. That is what Ronald Reagan proposed. Those are the exact brackets Ronald Reagan proposed in 1986.

Now, much has changed. I would be the first to acknowledge that. Certainly the AMT hits much harder than anything that was anticipated in the 1980s. But I am interested in being flexible with respect to the rates.

If the Senate, after bipartisan deliberation on a fair flat tax, wanted to have 13, 23, and 33, that would be fine with me. The principle is we ought to say marginal rates are important; they send a very significant message with respect to growth. But let us treat all income the same. Let us particularly get rid of some of this mindless kind of bureaucracy.

We are having a hearing today on the tax gap, the money that is not collected that ought to be paid. We all realize that is a good opportunity to generate revenue to help the middle class. If we pick up some of that money, we will drive the rates down for everybody in this country even more than I am proposing.

People ask me what I stand for. I stand for the proposition that every American ought to have the opportunity to climb the ladder of success. And let us start by changing the Tax Code, where the second wealthiest person in the United States, Warren Buffett, pays a lower tax rate than his receptionist. How is the receptionist going to be in a position to be in the middle class if we don't treat them fairly?

I also think it is worth noting that when you graduate from a college in Oklahoma or in Illinois, when you go out into the marketplace and in the first job with your new college degree, after all that hard work, you are going to pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett, the second wealthiest person in this country.

We need incentives for investment.

I protect 90 percent of the interest income earned by people who are saving and showing the kind of financial discipline which is necessary to get ahead.

But we can have a Tax Code that is simpler, flatter, and fairer.

I wrap up by saying to both Democrats and Republicans, I believe this is really what you are all about.

For Democrats, what could be more important than a message about giving the middle class a fair shake, the opportunity to climb the ladder of success and get out from under some of this bureaucracy?

Our friend from Illinois is here, Senator Durbin. His colleague from the House, Congressman Emanuel, has tax clinics in Chicago for families who can't fill out the earned income tax credit because it is too complicated. I have outlined how absurd the requirements are for the alternative minimum tax and why it is difficult for folks to comply. But this is something which affects everybody--poor folks with the earned income tax credit and the middle-class folks with the alternative minimum tax.

As far as I can tell, many of the affluent in this country are saying to themselves: What really counts is finding a better accountant to get me more tax dodges because that is the way you get ahead in this country, not by innovating but by finding an accountant to get you more tax dodges.

It doesn't have to be this way. The Code doesn't have to be as complicated as it is. The Code doesn't have to discriminate against people who work for a living. The late President Reagan accepted that principle in the 1986 tax reform.

We can do this. Certainly the administration, after talking about how they were interested in tax reform and forming a commission, is going to ask me and, I believe, other Members of Congress: Where are the deadlines?

This is an opportunity for the administration to have a big second- term initiative. Ronald Reagan did this in the middle of his second term because he reached out to Senators such as Bill Bradley and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in the other body, Congressman Rostenkowski.

It is time to cleanse this Code. It has been 20 years since real reform, 14,000 changes, spending more on preparation than the Government spends on higher education. That is a disgrace. It is not right to working people. It is not right to all taxpayers, regardless of their income.

It is my intention to come back to this Chamber again and again--but particularly between now and April 15--as I have done today with the alternative minimum tax.

I would like to pose once more the language for folks who are middle income and trying to comply with the alternative minimum tax. If anybody who is not a CPA can figure out the first line of the AMT, I urge them to call me. My guess is they can't. They will have to call their accountant to sort it out.

I also wish to point out for people trying to get help this morning that the IRS has an 800-number. We will post it on our Web site: 1-800- 829-1040.

As I wrap up this presentation, let me contrast this, which is the dead wood in the tax bureaucracy today, with the legislation I have filed, the Fair Flat Tax Act, which replaces the legal mumbo-jumbo I have shown you with our section 1--just a handful of lines--describing whether you are single, married, head of household, or a widower.

I know colleagues are waiting to speak.

Certainly.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Illinois, who as usual is being a bit too logical. The fact is, if Members of the Congress had to go through this--because we

will have a lot who are paying the AMT, many who have investments of a variety of sorts--I believe that alone could trigger a bit of a revolution around here. I think the challenge is for people to see just the kind of tax hole we have dug ourselves into over the last 20 years--14,000 changes, needless complications.

I really do not see how a middle-class person can get ahead with a Tax Code that discriminates against work. The Senator from Illinois has been a champ for the middle-class kind of family.

Here is the way it works. If a cop in Chicago gets a $500 pay raise, that cop pays 25 percent of his or her pay raise to the Federal Government in income taxes, and then they pay Social Security payroll taxes on top of that. If somebody in downtown Chicago makes all their money from capital gains and investment, they pay 15 percent on their capital gains and no Social Security payroll tax.

Again, I have tried to emphasize that I am not for soaking anybody. I believe in markets, and I believe in creating wealth, as I believe Senators of both political parties do. But as the Senator from Illinois has pointed out, if Senators were really forced to deal with these kinds of situations themselves, starting with the Tax Code complications, when they fill it out on their own, that could start a revolution around here.

I believe this is a bipartisan opportunity that comes along rarely.

I will wrap up with one last point.

I believe the Social Security reform showed a lot about what our citizens think about a vital American program. A lot of Americans love Social Security dearly, and there are a lot of rallies outside the offices of Members of Congress, with folks carrying signs saying, ``I love Social Security.'' I tell colleagues that there will be no rally outside your office with people carrying signs saying, ``We Love the IRS Code.'' This is something which could be reformed, could be changed on a bipartisan basis.

The Senator asks a good question. First, a quick word on my proposal, which is available from the Congressional Research Service and Jane Gravell, the top economist who is there to discuss it with Senators. It would actually reduce the deficit by about $100 billion over 5 years, making downpayments in terms of deficit reduction.

But here is what the distribution profile looks like in terms of our legislation. We believe that upwards of 70 percent of the people in this country would get a solid tax cut. These are middle-class folks making $60,000, $70,000, $80,000, and $90,000. Essentially, what the Congressional Research Service has shown is that millions of middle- class people would get relief. It is upwards of 70 percent. We have calculated that about 15 percent of the people in this country would be treated about the same.

For example--and it is matter of public record, and I can discuss it--I have a Senate wage of about $160,000, and I have a bit of investment income. I come out about the same under my proposal as under the status quo. We have to make 6 or 7 percent of the people in this country who make virtually all their income from capital gains and dividends--not from wages--pay a bit more.

So that is what the distributional effect of one actual proposal looked like. That was again very similar to what happened in 1986 when Ronald Reagan, after having started his Presidency with a set of tax changes--and my colleague will remember they were largely for investment--did an about-face and passed a reform proposal that gave real relief to middle-class people.

I want to close by thanking the Senator from Illinois, who I know has a great interest in this subject and has been a strong champion of the middle class.

Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I thank, particularly, the distinguished Senator from Montana, who is on the floor, Mr. Baucus, and Senator Grassley, for working very closely with me on this issue because I think this illustrates something the Senate is going to have to tackle aggressively in the days ahead. This, at least, makes a modest step in the right direction.

At a time when the oil companies have been making record profits and often charging record prices at the pump, it does not seem, to me, they ought to be receiving record subsidies from the taxpayers.

What this amendment does--and this would mean for the first time in, as far as I can tell, 20 years--the Congress would actually be rolling back a subsidy to the oil industry. This would limit one of the new tax breaks that the major oil companies received in last year's Energy bill.

The reason I feel so strongly about this, colleagues, is we had the major oil companies before the Energy Committee recently, and I asked the CEOs of the five largest oil companies if they agreed with the President's statement--and I quote here--``With $55 oil, we don't need incentives for oil and gas companies to explore.''

The CEOs of ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, BP, and Shell all agreed that the new tax breaks for exploration in the Energy bill were unnecessary. In fact, ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond said:

When you add it all up that energy legislation is zero in

terms of how it affects ExxonMobil.

So what we have is the bizarre situation where the Congress sends billions of dollars of new subsidies to the oil companies when the oil companies actually show up at congressional hearings and say they do not even need these subsidies that the Congress is sending them.

Now, ExxonMobil recently announced it had posted an all-time record profit of $36 billion in 2005. That huge amount is not just the highest profit ever for an oil company, it is the highest profit ever for any company. And ExxonMobil is not the only oil company to post a record- high profit in 2005. ConocoPhillips reported its profits shot up 66 percent to $13.5 billion, while ChevronTexaco's profits jumped to more than $14 billion. The five largest oil companies in the country had combined profits of more than $110 billion.

So I would only say to the Senate today, it is one thing to talk about new tax breaks to the oil companies and to look at them, as we are doing today, and to particularly say: Do the oil companies need these tax breaks in order to promote exploration and secure the energy our country needs? What we now have is the situation where the oil companies themselves have come to the Congress and have said, publicly, before the Congress, they do not need these kinds of tax breaks.

At a time when they make record profits and consumers have recently paid record-high prices, the Federal Government simply should not record record-high subsidies to these companies.

The Senate tax reconciliation bill includes an amendment I had the opportunity to work with Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus on to eliminate one of the new tax breaks for the oil companies to explore. This is exactly the type of incentive the major oil company CEOs and President Bush have said they do not need.

The special-interest tax break I was able to see eliminated from the Finance Committee bill would cost taxpayers about $300 million over 10 years. The taxpayers, in effect, would have to pay higher taxes to provide this big break for major oil companies, when the price of oil is over $60 per barrel. That is $7 per barrel higher than the price at which the President said they

do not need incentives. At these high prices, it is my view we ought to take back this unnecessary tax break and save our citizens hard-earned tax dollars.

Now, there are some in the industry who may argue the five major oil companies' CEOs do not speak for the entire industry. They may argue the small producers still need more incentives to explore.

I want to emphasize this amendment does not affect the small producers. This amendment is about the large oil companies, the people who came to the Senate and said they do not need new subsidies.

This amendment is about making sure these major firms don't get a tax break they now have testified they don't need. The fact is, over the past 2 years, oil companies have already increased their drilling operations as the price of oil has skyrocketed from $45 per barrel to over $70 per barrel. The number of rigs in operation and the amount of drilling have also been increased by a third since 2003. Most of this increased drilling occurred before the new tax break went into effect.

What it comes down to is Congress should not provide more subsidies to major oil companies that make record profits to do what they are already doing, especially at a time when our consumers are getting hammered at the pump. Unless the Congress accepts this measure that the Finance Committee accepted when I offered it through the support of the chairman and Senator Baucus, the major oil companies would be getting a significant new tax break that other major industries don't get.

Instead of having to write off some of their capital costs over a number of years, major companies would get accelerated writeoffs for what is called geological and geophysical exploration costs. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the IRS and the Federal courts have ruled that these costs are capital costs which should properly be depreciated over the entire period the oil well is producing, which can be a decade or longer.

The President's budget calls for scaling back this special treatment of oil and gas exploration costs by extending the depreciation period for what are called G&G costs from 2 to 5 years. The Senate bill takes a little different approach by repealing accelerated depreciation of these costs for the biggest oil companies.

I wish to emphasize this, particularly since I see my friend from Mississippi who has discussed the energy issue in a very thoughtful way in committee. The Senator from Mississippi and others have stressed how important these incentives are to the independents and small producers. This is something with which I am sympathetic.

I have indicated to Chairman Grassley and others that I believe we ought to be taking a comprehensive look at the Tax Code as it relates to the energy field to make sure we can reconfigure these tax breaks so that when they are needed by the small companies and the independents, they can get them, but we don't keep sending them out the door to the big oil companies and then have these big oil companies in effect embarrass the Congress by coming to a hearing and saying: Look, we don't need these breaks.

Tax breaks such as the accelerated writeoffs for these costs also clutter up the Tax Code and distort capital markets. It is not the place to discuss it today, but my Fair Flat Tax Act would give us a bipartisan opportunity to remove some of that clutter from the Tax Code. At least we can make a start at reform today by eliminating the special interest tax break for the oil industry which the companies say they don't need.

Our consumers already pay more at work, they pay more at home, and they pay more as they drive everywhere in between. Let's give them a break in their personal energy bills. We can give them a break by ensuring that those folks who are getting hammered with high energy bills at home won't have to subsidize profitable oil companies when they pay their taxes.

I urge my colleagues to support fiscal responsibility by supporting my motion to urge the conferees to support the Senate position, eliminate this special tax break for the major companies. This does not apply to the small companies. It doesn't apply to the independents. I have worked closely with Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus to ensure that will be the case.

I hope we will be back in this Chamber for a more comprehensive discussion of the Tax Code and energy policy in the days ahead. My own sense is, in the last energy bill, we subsidized an awful lot of people to do the wrong thing. Getting a new energy policy is arguably the most red, white, and blue issue the Congress could possibly take up. I think about our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, these individuals who honor us every day with their courage and valor. I want to make sure their kids and grandkids are not off in the Middle East fighting a war and Congress is still dallying on oil.

This is a step in the right direction. I suspect other colleagues want to discuss this issue. I reserve the remainder of my time.

In fact, how much additional time do I have on this motion?

Absolutely.

The Senator is correct. I am asking that we insist on what we did in the Finance Committee and what Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus have worked closely with me on. It is our feeling that we do need to have a broader and more comprehensive discussion about this down the road, but we took a modest step in the right direction in the Finance Committee. That is what I wish to preserve with this motion.

Right.

Mr. President, to respond briefly, I thank the Senator from Mississippi. I am interested in working with him on the Finance Committee. This discussion does need to be part of a longer debate.

The Senator from Mississippi has drawn an important distinction that a number of us have talked about as to the difference between the small firms and the independents and the big firms. What we tried to do in this bipartisan amendment is to preserve it. Frankly, in a sense, we ought to do this just to prevent the embarrassment of the Senate. When you have these big oil companies show up in broad daylight and say they don't need these tax breaks, and the Congress has just been sending out billions of dollars, that ought to be a wake-up call for both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, to work together to rethink this. I hope this will be the beginning of such an effort. It is a modest step. It will save $300 million over 10 years--clearly, not what we need to do to deal with the hemorrhaging of the Federal budget, but at least it is a step in the right direction.

I thank the distinguished Senator from Mississippi and reserve the remainder of my time.

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