Floor Statements

Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today reauthorizes a very successful cooperative watershed restoration program that I originally sponsored, and that was originally enacted for the Forest Service, in the fiscal year 1999 Interior Appropriations bill. The original legislation lasted through fiscal year 2001 after which it was reauthorized by the Appropriations Committees, at my request, through fiscal year 2005 and then again through fiscal year 2011. It is time this legislation had a full hearing in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and was made a permanent authority.

The bill making what is commonly referred to as the Wyden amendment permanent authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to use appropriated Forest Service funds for watershed restoration and enhancement agreements that benefit the ecological health of National Forest System lands and watersheds. The Wyden Amendment does not require additional funding, but allows the Forest Service to leverage scarce restoration dollars thereby allowing the Federal dollars to stretch farther. During the 7 years the program has existed the Forest Service has leveraged three dollars for every Forest Service dollar spent on these agreements.

The Wyden amendment has resulted in countless Forest Service cooperative agreements with neighboring State and local land owners to accomplish high priority restoration, protection and enhancement work on public and private watersheds. The projects authorized by these agreements have improved watershed health and fish habitat through the control of invasive species, culvert replacement, and other riparian zone improvement projects. In addition to ecological restoration, use of the Wyden amendment has improved cooperative relationships between the Forest Service, private land owners, State agencies and other federal agencies.

I am hopeful that my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee will have a hearing on this program soon to highlight its successes and that thereafter this legislation can pass the Senate expeditiously.

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

Mr. President, This year's intelligence authorization bill is a key piece of legislation for all Americans and one that I hope to be able to support. But, as written, the bill is marred by the presence of provisions that pose serious concerns for Americans' privacy rights. Among them is one provision that would permit military intelligence officials to conduct covert interviews of U.S. persons on U.S. soil to assess them as potential intelligence sources without disclosing their government affiliation. With this provision in the legislation, I am compelled to announce my intention to object to any unanimous consent request to bring S. 1803, the intelligence reauthorization bill, to the Senate floor for approval without the opportunity for debate and consideration of amendments.

This legislation has been considered by three different Committees: The Senate Intelligence committee, the Senate Committee on Armed Services, and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Three different committees have reviewed the legislation, but there has not been a single hearing on the expanded power the administration is seeking to enable DOD personnel to demand information of law-abiding U.S. citizens without having to disclose to them who they are, on whose behalf they are seeking personal and other information or what they intend to do with this information.

The CIA already possesses the statutory authority to engage in such surreptitious interrogations of U.S. citizens, and the Department of Defense has not in my mind made the case for gaining this new authority as well. In fact, the DOD has not provided any evidence that the failure to have this authority has resulted in damage to U.S. national security.

According to recent press reports, the FBI has gained access to tens of thousands of pieces of information about U.S. citizens through national security letters. This information reportedly ranges from where a person makes and spends money and who they live with to where they travel and who they email. All of this information has been deposited in government data banks, and according to press reports, this personal information is shared widely, without restriction. The same press reports say that tomorrow not only will such information be shared within the Federal bureaucracy but it will be made available to State, local and tribal entities, and ``appropriate private sector entities.''

I remain steadfast in my belief that you can protect national security without gutting civil liberties; and this legislation, as it currently is written, is out of balance. A debate on something as important as protecting the rights of our constituents to their privacy and shielding against the surreptitious shakedown of law-abiding citizens is one instance when Americans can and must be invited into the process.

Shining sunlight on intelligence information for the benefit of Americans

and policymakers alike is critical to our security. Congress must work to improve information sharing, and we owe it to the American people to make sure that safeguards remain in place to ensure that sensitive personal information is not tossed around inappropriately.

Madam President, I call up the Wyden-Collins amendment.

Madam President, you cannot look the public in the eye after all the speeches about how the oil is needed here at home and pass legislation that is an invitation to export Alaskan oil to countries such as China. The history is, if you do not ban these exports, this oil is going to go to Asia. That was confirmed not long ago by oil company executives who came before the Senate Commerce Committee. Without this amendment, there is no assurance that even one drop of Alaskan oil will get to hurting Americans. I hope the Senate agrees to this amendment to, at the very least, put a Band-Aid on a flawed policy.

I yield to my cosponsor, the Senator from Missouri.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, it has been a long day in the Senate, especially for our capable and dedicated staff. I wish to take a couple of minutes to say thank you to the Senators who, a bit ago, supported the Snowe-Wyden legislation to hold down the cost of prescription medicine.

Tonight a majority of the Senate voted to make the Federal Government a smart shopper when it comes to prescription drugs. For the first time, the Senate voted to remove an error of commission: the authorization of a provision in the prescription drug law that bars the Federal Government from negotiating to hold down the cost of prescription drugs.

For the life of me, at a time when the Federal budget is hemorrhaging, when the Government must pay for the costs of Katrina, I do not see how you can argue against the Snowe-Wyden amendment that was offered tonight. It prohibits price controls--that is certainly critical--so we can encourage innovation and research in the pharmaceutical area, but what the Snowe-Wyden amendment does is ensure that the Federal Government is going to do what everybody does in the marketplace--and that is use its bargaining power to hold down the costs. That is what the Federal Emergency Management Agency does when it buys cots, what every Federal agency does to make sure taxpayers and our citizens have their concerns addressed responsibly.

Now, tonight, Senator Snowe and I had to get a supermajority to prevail. I want it understood that no matter how many procedural hurdles are put in front of us, no matter how many roadblocks are put up, we are going to keep coming back on this issue again and again and again until the needs of seniors and our taxpayers are met.

The older people of this country are insisting that an offensive piece of special interest legislation, one that defies common sense, get changed. The AARP made the case when they backed our bipartisan bill. They pointed out that drugs seniors use, such as Lipitor, are going up more than twice the rate of inflation. Seniors want that changed. They will not abide it. Taxpayers will not abide it. And Senator Snowe and I are going to stay at it until Medicare is liberated and can act as a smart shopper.

Fifty-one Senators--a majority of this body--said tonight it is time to get serious about holding down the cost of medicine in the United States. Fifty-one votes is not the supermajority we needed, but Senator Snowe and I are going to stay at it until we get justice done for our older people.

Finally, I want to say a special thanks to our bipartisan group of sponsors and particularly thank Senator Stabenow, Senator McCain, and Senator Feinstein. They are all Senators who got this from the get-go. They understood this was a question of making sure that, at a time when the Federal Government begins the biggest expansion of entitlement health care in years, we take steps to protect the interests of taxpayers and the interests of older people who, right now, are beginning to sign up for the program and will, in fact, start participating formally next year.

We believed it was important tonight to offer this amendment. We wish we had more time to discuss it this evening. I went into it at some length yesterday, but I am pleased we made real progress. For the first time, a majority of the Senate says that this provision that keeps the Federal Government from being a smart shopper simply does not add up. It does not make sense. It defies logic. It is contrary to what everybody else does in the marketplace across the country. I wish we could have gotten the 60 votes needed to prevail tonight, but for the first time we got a majority, and we are going to come back again and again and again. We are going to do it because the older people of this country deserve a fair shake. They are going to insist we keep coming back.

I close my comments tonight by thanking the Presiding Officer, as well, for his support in this effort.

Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, would up to 5 minutes be acceptable?

Thank you, Mr. President.

Amendment No. 2362

Mr. President, I thank Senator Cantwell for her excellent work and concur with her remarks.

Mr. President, you cannot look the public in the eye and say you are going to drill in ANWR and then ship this oil to China or one of the highest bidders around the world. That is, in my view, exactly what would happen without the Wyden-Talent legislation that is going to be offered now.

Under the legislation, the Secretary could adopt oil lease terms that ensure what is described as the receipt of fair market value. The legislation does not make any mention whatsoever of what we have heard constantly for months and months; and that is this is somehow supposed to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil or increase our energy security.

So what you would have is a situation where if the highest price is in South America, Arctic oil would go to South America; if the highest price is in the Far East, Arctic oil would have to go to the Far East; and, certainly, given the insatiable demand for energy in China, I think, with the dollar being weak, as sure as the night follows the day, without the Wyden-Talent amendment, this oil would end up going to the highest bidder in the Far East, particularly the Chinese.

I do think this amendment is the very least the Senate can do to put a Band-Aid on what I think is a fundamentally flawed decision. I hope, as colleagues look at this--we had the debate in the Energy Committee-- they get a sense of exactly what is involved.

With the inflated revenue projections of $2.4 billion from oil leases in the Arctic included in the budget, the Federal Government is going to be forced to sell the oil to the highest bidder to even come close to that amount. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that net Federal proceeds, over a 10-year period, would be $2.6 billion, with the initial royalties from production near the end of the decade. The budget assumes nearly all of those revenues in the next 5 years alone.

So what that means is, if we are going to have any prospect of making sure this oil goes to the United States, we have to have this legislation.

I also point out that the distinguished senior Senator from Oregon-- we still describe him as the senior Senator--Mark Hatfield, shared this position for years. He was a supporter of the oil industry, but he said: By God, aren't we going to keep this oil here at home? Yet what we heard in the Energy Committee is we are concerned about the Mercantile Exchange, we are concerned about all kinds of questions about trade law. This is not about the Mercantile Exchange. This is not about trade law. This is about whether the pledge that has been made by supporters, that this oil is going to stay in the United States, gets honored.

I would like to tell my colleagues, particularly my good friend from Alaska, who said, ``Oh, it is a sure bet this oil will stay in the United States,'' that I specifically asked--I have the transcript with me--executives from BP, when they came to the Senate Commerce Committee, whether they would make a commitment to keep Alaskan oil in the United States. According to the official Senate transcript that I have, they would not make that commitment. That is why this legislation is needed. To allow

drilling, and then shipping it overseas, in my view, is a case of two wrongs making a colossal wrong.

So I hope the Senate now will accept this amendment. In my view, it is the very least that can be done to address the needs of consumers in our country.

I thank my friend from Missouri, who contacted me about his interest in this issue. With supporters of oil drilling claiming oil is needed to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil, we ought to recognize that in this Senate budget reconciliation bill we are not increasing U.S. energy security by one drop of oil--not one drop of oil--unless we have the assurance that this amendment provides that the oil would stay in the United States.

I thank my colleague from Washington State for giving me this time. I appreciate the cooperation of the Senator from Missouri, who I think is prepared to speak at this time.

Mr. President, I call up the amendment.

No.

Mr. President, that is correct. I want to propound a unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent once the Senate has completed its business on this legislation for tonight to be able to speak for up to 45 minutes on the issue of bargaining power for the Medicare Program to hold down the costs of prescription medicine.

If the Senator from New Hampshire has given me his response, I gather you would like me to hold off on my unanimous consent request.

I appreciate the offer from the Senator from New Hampshire.

When the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from North Dakota have completed the processing of the various amendments, I would like to have the opportunity to speak for up to 45 minutes. Perhaps other colleagues will want to participate on the question of holding down the cost of prescription medicine.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, as all Members of this body know, the Federal Government is about to begin one of the biggest expansions in Federal entitlement programs in our country's history. In a few weeks, the senior citizens of our country will be eligible for a much-needed prescription drug benefit, and I rise to talk about that program tonight.

I am particularly troubled about the fact that the Federal Government, in launching this program, is not going to be a smart shopper. You would think, after Katrina, given the huge hemorrhaging in our Federal budget, this would be a top priority for the Federal budget, to shop smart, to squeeze every possible bit of value out of the money that is being spent for critical programs, such as purchasing prescription drugs for senior citizens. Unfortunately, that is not the case. At a time when the costs for this program have escalated from about $400 billion to over $530 billion, with a 10-year estimate for this benefit projected to cost over $720 billion, what is locked into current law is an inability to get the best value for the purchase of those medicines.

It is well understood all across the country that anybody who goes shopping in the private sector tries to get the most for their dollar by stressing their bargaining power. Certainly, the senior citizens of this country have a whole lot of bargaining power. You would think it would be the position of the Federal Government to try to take advantage of that bargaining power in order to strike the best deal for older people and taxpayers. Notice that I emphasize the words ``bargaining power''--not price controls, not rules set in Washington, DC, a one-size-fits-all approach, nothing that would discourage innovation among pharmaceutical companies, but simply bargaining power. Of course, that is what all the smart buyers do in the private sector today.

Take, for example, a big timber company in my part of the world. They represent a lot of workers. They go out and bargain with pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, and others. They get the most for their dollar. The small company, on the other hand, doesn't have that kind of leverage and, to a great extent in this country, individuals and small companies basically end up subsidizing the big companies and people with clout in the marketplace. Again, nobody is talking about price controls. We are talking about economics 101. If you are buying in volume, if you have the opportunity to use marketplace forces to get the most for your dollar, you try to do it. You try to use the powerful forces of economics 101, which is the market power of bulk purchasing.

Unfortunately, that is not going to be done in the area of purchasing prescription drugs for older people in our country, beginning the first of the year. In fact, what the Federal Government is doing is essentially turning on its head the principle of smart shopping. What the Federal Government would be doing, unless the Congress steps in, is pretty much like somebody going to Costco and buying toilet paper one roll at a time. The Federal Government isn't using its bargaining power to hold down the cost of medicine. At a time when prescriptions are one of the fastest growing forces in American health care, that defies common sense.

Some errors are known as errors of omission; others are known as errors of commission. The fact that the Secretary of Health and Human Services is prohibited from using the power of bulk buying to hold down the cost of medicine for seniors is, in my view, one of the most outrageous errors of commission in the history of health care legislation. The Medicare prescription drug statute didn't forget to give the Secretary of Health and Human Services bargaining power to hold down the cost of medicine; the statute specifically told the Secretary he could not have such authority to get a fair deal for older people. So what we have at a time when the cost of the program is going through the stratosphere, at a time when seniors are trying to decide whether to sign up, is we have a statute that denies the Secretary of Health and Human Services the same marketplace tool that any consumer has in our communities across the country--the power to leverage bulk purchasing to get a better price. Federal law now denies the Secretary of Health and Human Services what hundreds of other Federal officials have--the power to get a better price for the taxpayer.

The Congress did not tell the Army they had to go out and buy one tent at a time for our soldiers in Iraq. The Congress didn't tell the Federal Emergency Management Agency they had to buy one mobile home at a time for hurricane victims. But unbelievably, Congress told Medicare they have to go out and buy one drug at a time as it relates to other people. So Medicare can't do what any savvied shopper in our country does, which is use their leverage in the marketplace to get lower prices. I think it is outrageous to have this double standard that prohibits Medicare from doing what all the other consumers in America can do, and it is time, in my view, to fix that.

Tomorrow, the Senate will have a bipartisan opportunity to do just that. Senator Snowe and I, along with Senator McCain and Senator Stabenow and a number of others, will offer an amendment that will lift the outrageous restriction on the Federal Government's ability to bargain, and under our bipartisan amendment the Secretary of Health and Human Services would have the authority to negotiate for lower drug prices.

I particularly wish to thank Senator Snowe. She and I have worked on this a number of years. Both of us voted for the prescription drug legislation. We have the welts on our back to show for it, and even the night of the vote we said we were going to come back and try to improve this, particularly to improve it in a way that would make sense for older people and for taxpayers. So we see our bipartisan amendment as an effort to follow up on the promise we made to our citizens back home.

I thank Senator Snowe, who is always trying to find common ground, bipartisan common ground, which is, of course, the only way you get important work done in the Senate.

I also want to say a special thanks to Senator McCain, who is constantly focused on ways to expose waste, get more for the taxpayer dollar, and also Senator Stabenow of Michigan. Senator Stabenow has spent enormous amounts of time on a whole host of issues advocating for older people and the cost of prescription drugs, and I am convinced that this issue would never have gotten the visibility and the attention that it warrants were it not for Senator Stabenow's focus on it.

I also would like to say the same about Senator Feinstein. She and I agreed on the night of the vote that we were going to join Senator Snowe in a bipartisan effort to get a fairer and better deal for older people, and I thank her as well for all of her effort.

Now, Mr. President, the Snowe-Wyden legislation includes specific language that prohibits price controls and the setting of prices in America. This is something I feel very strongly about, and I know the Presiding Officer has a great interest in encouraging innovation and research. I think we all understand what is going on in the pharmaceutical field. We are seeing breakthroughs every single day, and one of the most important steps we can take in the public policy arena is to foster innovation and research even in my fair flat tax proposal that I introduced this week, and I know the Presiding Officer has great interest in tax reform, keeping the research and development tax break because it is important. So I don't take a backseat to anybody in terms of encouraging innovation and research, and one of the key ways to promote innovation and research is to avoid price controls, the setting of prices in Washington, DC, anything that would lead to policies that freeze the Government's ability to encourage innovation.

So what we have done in this particular amendment is put in a statutory restriction on price controls, on the setting of prices so that it is clear to everyone in the Senate that all we wish to do in our bipartisan effort is to untie the hands of the Secretary of Health and Human Services and put Medicare in the position of being a smart shopper. I cannot for the life of me think why Medicare should not have the same power to negotiate what other programs and governments have, that others in the private sector would

have, and with our bipartisan legislation, Medicare would have that power.

This is particularly important because savings from negotiations are only going to come about as it relates to single-source drugs if this restriction is lifted. Without it, it seems to me we will not have negotiations for these single-source drugs where there isn't the kind of competition and marketplace forces. Many single-source drugs are particularly important for older people. We are talking about drugs such as Lipator, Zocor, and Prevacid. Lipator, for example, was at the top of the list of drugs most often taken by older people, and all of the drugs I mentioned were in the top 20 in terms of drugs used by seniors.

So when it comes to savings--and this was noted by the Congressional Budget Office in a letter to me and Senator Snowe last year--it seems to me that you especially need the power to negotiate when you are talking about single-source drugs. Given the importance of Lipator in the marketplace, prevalence in terms of the older population, I hope that as Senators look at this amendment, they will see the value of giving the Secretary the power to negotiate. It is particularly critical when it relates to single-source drugs.

In my view, it is disappointing that the way the underlying legislation was drafted, the fundamental base bill is going to require more than a simple majority for us to prevail. Certainly, there are a lot of special interests in this town that do not want the Federal Government to be a smart shopper. The number of lobbyists that are working against this legislation, which I will tell you I think is just about the most offensive restriction I have seen in health policy, the number of lobbyists working against our bipartisan amendment is just staggering. And make no mistake about what the special interests who oppose our legislation want to do. They would rather soak the taxpayer and add to the budget deficit than to have to negotiate with the Federal Government like all other businesses. They are basically saying: Look, we are special. Don't require us to have to go out and bargain. We shouldn't have to do what everybody else does.

Everybody else in America who has marketplace clout is allowed to use it. That is what markets are all about. But because of the power of the special interests, this restriction prohibits Medicare from using the kind of marketplace forces that everybody else uses, and it is not right.

I am sure that seniors and their families across the country are going to be especially concerned about the fact that this legislation is going to increase their Part B premiums. But it seems to me that at a time when their part B premiums are going to go up, when they are going to have to pay extra costs out of their pocket for copays and deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses, that alone would be a reason why we would look to give Medicare more bargaining power to hold down the cost of this program.

Seniors are going to have less in their pocket to pay for prescription drugs and to sign up for this program. But the legislation was carefully written to make it tough on us and to increase the number of Senators we would have to have to pass this legislation. We are going to need more than a simple majority, and I think it is particularly unfortunate that at a time when seniors are going to see their Part B premiums go up, that we are not going to give them this opportunity to seek some real savings in what they have to pay for prescription medicine.

I hope that Senators are going to be supportive of this legislation. I am sure when a Senator goes home and discusses prescription drugs, one of the first things that folks at home are going to ask is: How are you going to keep the cost down? What are you doing, Senator, to hold down the cost of medicine? The private sector is doing it, other Government programs are doing it; what are you doing, Senator, to hold down the cost of medicine?

Tomorrow, the bipartisan group of Senators I mentioned--Senator Snowe leading our effort, myself, Senator McCain, Senator Stabenow, and others--will be saying: Look, we have something that is going to provide an opportunity for the Federal Government to be a smart shopper, to use its marketplace clout, and to hold down the cost of medicine when seniors are seeing an increase in their out-of-pocket expenses.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that there is going to be an 8.5-percent increase in the cost of this program, and the Government Accountability Office has shown that the prices for existing drugs are increasing two and three times the rate of inflation.

This is a prescription for a program that does not work. That is a failure, and I will tell you I don't want to fail our country's seniors. I voted for the prescription drug law. I want to make it work. But I will tell you, I am very troubled about the prospect that if steps are not taken to hold down the costs of this program, there is a real prospect that a great deal of money will be spent on a relatively small number of people because we will not have the number of seniors signing up that we need.

We need to make this program work. It is important. Prescription drugs are a lifeline. Affordable prescription drugs are essential for the Nation's older people. Too many of these drugs are simply priced out of the reach of older people.

At the end of the day, the bipartisan legislation that Senator Snowe will offer with myself and our bipartisan group is simply common sense. Let's make Medicare a smart shopper by allowing bargaining power. Let's stop this idea of forsaking our ability to be a savvy shopper, and let us make sure that when Medicare goes out and tries to make sure that the costs of this program are held down, that it has the tools it needs in its cost-containment arsenal to get the job done right and to make sure that the costs of this program, for both taxpayers and seniors, are held down.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Feinstein, Dayton, Kohl, and Feingold be added as cosponsors of the legislation.

Mr. President, this bipartisan measure will be voted on tomorrow. My sense is that because the day will be very hectic, having to vote on many amendments, that there will not be much time for explanation of this measure. Senator Snowe, Senator Stabenow, and others who spent so much time on this issue are going to want to speak. I will tell the Senate tonight this is one of the most important issues to come up in a long time. This program will be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, expansions of Federal entitlement policy we have ever seen. Why we wouldn't want to go about this right and make the Government a smart shopper, a savvy shopper, why we wouldn't want to do that is beyond me.

What we have is an error of commission. What you saw is, in this legislation, very powerful special interests said we want a unique set of rules to apply to us: We shouldn't have to negotiate, even though everybody else negotiates with the Government and the private sector; give us a free ride; restrict, as a matter of law, the ability of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make sure that seniors and taxpayers got a square deal.

That is not right. This is about common sense. This is about the Federal Government being a smart shopper. This is about standing up for taxpayers and seniors.

I would like to wrap up tonight by reading a bit from the AARP letter of endorsement for the legislation. Mr. President, I am going to read briefly from this letter, but I ask unanimous consent that the AARP letter endorsing the bipartisan measure to contain the cost of medicine be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the letter says, and I will read a bit of it:

AARP supports your amendment to the Senate fiscal year 2006

Budget Reconciliation bill to provide for the ability of the

Secretary of Health and Human Services to participate in the

negotiations between pharmaceutical manufacturers and

prescription drug plans under the Medicare Part D program.

Prescription drug prices continue to rise much faster than

the rate of inflation. AARP's latest Rx Watchdog report

released this week found that prices for nearly 200 of the

most commonly used brand name medications rose 6.1 percent

during the 12 month period from July 2004-June 2005. At the

same time, the rate of general inflation was 3 percent. These

drug price increases particularly hit older Americans, who

use prescription drugs more than any other segment of the

U.S. population.

In two weeks, millions of older and disabled Americans will

have the opportunity to choose prescription drug coverage as

part of their 2006 Medicare benefit options. The new Medicare

prescription drug benefit will help millions of beneficiaries

afford needed medications. Improvements to the Medicare

Modernization Act are necessary to strengthen the benefit and

the Medicare program. We believe the first step is to keep

the drug benefit affordable for beneficiaries as well as

taxpayers.

While the competitive structure already existing in the MMA

may help to bring prescription drug prices down, we believe

that giving the Secretary the authority to participate in

negotiations may also help to make prescription drugs more

affordable for Medicare beneficiaries.

Mr. President, there is a bit more to the letter, but I think the Senate can get the general drift.

The AARP, the organization that represents millions of older people, explicitly tonight endorses our bipartisan amendment. They have pointed out that the cost of these medications, the ones that are so important to older people, are going up double the rate of inflation.

Let me emphasize that to the Senate. The drugs that seniors use, the prices are going up double the rate of inflation.

So we need some serious tools to contain these costs. At a time when the Federal Government ought to be using more effective tools to hold down the costs of medicine, we have locked into law a restriction on the ability of the Government to do what smart shoppers in America do every single day, and that is to use their marketplace clout, bulk purchasing power, to get the best value for them and their families. It is time to lift this outrageous, offensive restriction that is now in Medicare law that prevents the Federal Government from being a smart shopper. It is now time to stand up for taxpayers and stand up for the older people in this country. The Senate will have a chance to do that when it votes on the bipartisan amendment tomorrow that has been filed tonight, will be offered tomorrow, by Senator Snowe, a bipartisan group. I hope my colleagues will support it resoundingly.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object--I do not intend to object-- I ask to modify the unanimous consent request to speak for up to 20 minutes, and I would also like to ask, with the leave of the Chair and the ranking minority Member, that Senator Nelson be allowed up to 2 minutes. I think he had one additional comment that he wanted to make about his proposal.

I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. President, America can do better than making a policeman walking the beat pay a higher Federal tax rate than someone who makes their money on capital gains and dividends. Unfortunately, the Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform today

sent to the President a recommendation that will widen the gap between our middle class workers and the fortunate few.

I am a Democrat who believes in markets, I believe in wealth creation, I believe in entrepreneurship, but I also believe in what Henry Ford said. He, of course, was the great industrialist. He made it clear that he wanted to make money and he wanted to do well but he said: For me to make money, my workers have to have enough money to be able to buy my cars.

What concerns me tonight is that the middle class, the folks who are hurting, have gotten short shrift once again from the special advisory panel on tax reform.

These are the folks, the middle class folks, who are walking an economic tightrope, balancing their medical bills against their energy bills, trying to set aside money to save for retirement and health. They are the ones who deserve a break.

I heard mention tonight that Democrats, Senators on my side of the aisle, were not interested in cutting taxes. Well, I proposed last week to cut taxes for millions of middle class people and folks with incomes up to $150,000 by eliminating scores of exemptions, deductions and special interest breaks that exist on both the individual side of the code and the corporate side of the code.

What we saw today is the special advisory panel on tax reform wanted none of that. They did not want to make those kinds of tough choices that step on the toes of special interests, powerful interests with big lobbies. Instead, what they did is take it once again out of the hide of middle income people who would be asked to give up tax breaks and support for concerns such as child care.

When we already have a big gap between those who work for wages and those who make their income on capital gains and dividends, how can it be that it is now proposed to widen that gap?

I think we would be well advised to look back to 1986, when the late President Reagan worked in a bipartisan way with Democrats, both with the Senate and the other body, to come up with a proposal that I think--certainly its foundation would be very appealing now. It makes sure that all income is treated equally. That is what this country has always been about. I do not want to soak anybody. I do not want to discriminate against anybody. But I do not think it is right for workers to have to pay a higher effective tax rate than those who make their money on capital gains and dividends.

Income ought to be treated the same. That is what the country is all about. It seems to me that the advisory panel on tax reform missed a big opportunity today when they widened the gap between those who work for wages and those who make their income from wealth.

If one looks at the tax panel's recommendations, in effect, they throw three strikes at the middle class and they lob softballs to the special interests. The first pitch is a slider that shifts a sizable tax burden away from those at the top to the middle income taxpayers. That is followed by a fast ball that takes away many of the deductions and credits such as those for child care and medical needs that middle income Americans have come to rely on. The third pitch is a change-up. The plan may look revenue neutral, but when it flies across the plate, it adds billions of dollars to the budget deficit and will force middle class Americans and their children to pay for tax cuts for the fortunate few.

Under this special advisory panel plan that was proposed today, the middle class simply strikes out. Certainly, those who are at the top are going to enjoy the grand slam that is offered by the panel's plan. The panel would cut their tax rates, those at the very top, once again and there is not the kind of massive housecleaning of the tax system either.

I proposed in my legislation, S. 1927, the Fair Flat Tax Act of 2005, that everybody pays their fair share, not just cutting the tax rates for the fortunate, making up for it by having the middle class subsidize those tax breaks, but mine would treat all income equally. To carry out our proposal, we include a new, simplified 1040 form, one page, 30 lines, for every individual taxpayer. There are three brackets rather than the current system.

Under my proposal the brackets are 15, 25, and 35, and we create a flat corporate rate of 35 percent. This plan is more fair because it would no longer disproportionately favor the most affluent at the expense of the middle class.

Certainly, the tax breaks that my legislation calls for step on toes. I pay for those middle class tax cuts. The proposal has been scored by the experts at the Congressional Research Service. I pay for the middle class tax cut by eliminating scores of tax breaks that are now in the Code for individuals and businesses. Certainly, some of them are going to object, already have. It seems to me that it is worth it to make a radical statement about tax laws, and that is that America can do better than a two-tiered tax system which forces a policeman to pay a higher effective tax rate than an investor who makes his income on capital gains dividends. What is fair about taxing a firefighter's hard-earned wages at a higher percentage than a corporate executive?

Under the current Federal Tax Code, all income is not created equal, and under what the panel proposed today to the President of the United States, the equality gap between the middle class and the fortunate few is going to grow.

Under the proposal that was sent to the President today, Americans who work for wages would further subsidize the cuts, credits, and deferrals of those who make their money from investments such as capital gains and dividends.

Personally, I think there were other opportunities for innovations that the panel missed. For example, I proposed in my legislation to end favoritism for itemizers. We do that by tripling the standard deduction for single filers from $5,000 to $15,000 and raise the deduction from $10,000 to $30,000 for married couples.

I eliminate the alternative minimum tax, which could snare as many as 21 million Americans in 2006. But instead of forcing middle-class people to pay for that, I go after some of those breaks and exemptions and special interest favors that have made their way into the Tax Code.

I will also say that the panel should have moved to correct a glaring inequity in the current tax system, which is regressive State and local taxes. They were advised about how regressive the State and local taxes have become, but unfortunately they took a pass on dealing with this issue as well.

Under current law, low- and middle-income taxpayers get hit with a double whammy. Compared to the fortunate few, they pay more of their income in State and local taxes. Poor families pay more than 11 percent, and middle-income families pay about 10 percent of their income in State and local taxes, while the most affluent pay much less, only about half that. Because many low- and middle-income taxpayers do not itemize, they get no credit on their Federal form for paying State and local taxes. In fact, two-thirds of the Federal deduction for State and local taxes goes to those with incomes above $100,000.

Under my legislation, the Fair Flat Tax Act, for the first time the Federal Tax Code would look at an individual's entire tax situation. My legislation would look at an individual's combined Federal, State, and local tax burden and give credit to low- and middle-income individuals to correct for regressive State and local taxes. By contrast, the advisory panel that reported to the President today proposes to eliminate the current State and local tax deduction with no credit or other mechanism to address the total tax burden that is paid by individuals in this country. So once again, the panel's approach further skews the overall tax burden toward low- and middle-income taxpayers, with the fortunate few benefiting and the middle class getting hammered again.

The proposal I have made keeps in place the deductions most important for our middle-class citizens and particularly the investments they make--the investments they make in their home, in their retirement, in education--those concerns that are so important to maintaining a middle class in our country.

In contrast to the proposal made by the advisory panel today, my legislation means that the vast majority of

American taxpayers will see a cut, particularly the middle class in our country. The Congressional Research Service has indicated that all Americans, particularly the middle class and those with incomes up to $150,000, will see tax relief. The President's panel, the advisory panel that reported today, itself said that most taxpayers under its plan will not see much difference in their taxes.

We are going to have a battle of ideas. We hear often that there ought to be a debate about specific proposals. Now we have one. The advisory panel that reported to the President of the United States said, by their own analysis, that most taxpayers under their proposal will not see much difference in their taxes.

Under the proposal I have made for a fair, flat tax rate, what is going to happen in this country, according to the independent analysts at the Congressional Research Service, is that millions of middle-class people will get a tax cut, and all Americans with incomes up to $150,000 will see tax relief. Where the panel throws strikes at the middle class, I say it is time to give the middle class a break. I certainly question the fairness of the President further cutting tax rates for those who are the most affluent in this country while the gap widens between those who depend on their wages to support their families.

Finally, to illustrate the contrast, the proposal made by the panel today does nothing to deal with the hemorrhage that we have in the Federal budget. My proposal, on the other hand, according to the Congressional Research Service, makes a real start at reducing the budget deficit and would actually whittle down these budget deficits approximately $100 billion over the next 5 years.

In summary, I am very troubled by the recommendations coming from the advisory panel today because they continue to twist the Tax Code away from equal treatment of all income, widening the chasm between people who get wages and people who collect dividends. I am troubled that it hits middle-class Americans especially hard, but it treats the special interests and the affluent with kid gloves. And I simply cannot find a sound rationale for adding massively to the country's deficit the way the advisory panel would do. Making the Tax Code simpler and flatter is going to help make it fairer. What is really needed is to provide actual, concrete tax relief to the middle class and to treat work and wealth equally. That was what was done in 1986.

I have been asked several times since introducing this legislation, How is anything going to happen now? The advisory panel's proposal probably goes off to the Federal agency on collecting dust, where they send these commission reports that do not get a lot of attention. But I will tell you that I think there is a chance to strike a chord out across the country with the middle class. That was what was done in 1986 when, on a bipartisan basis, President Reagan and several leading Democrats said, as I am suggesting tonight: America can do better than to tax the middle-class person's wages at a higher rate than it does the people who make their money on capital gains and dividends. If it was good enough for Ronald Reagan in 1986, I think it ought to be pretty appealing to this Congress tonight and in the days ahead.

Now that the debate has been joined, we have the advisory panel's proposal which shows again what their priorities are, which I have outlined tonight. I think they are unfortunate. The legislation I have authored would give significant tax cuts to middle-class folks by eliminating scores of exemptions and deductions and would reduce the Federal deficit at a time when these budget books are hemorrhaging.

The debate is joined. There are two clear alternatives, two clear approaches to this issue of how to approach tax reform now on the table. I look forward to the debate. It is my hope that the Congress, as was done in 1986, can decide this is time to cleanse the Tax Code. Ever since 1986, one break, one exemption, one deduction after another has been added to the Code. Unfortunately, not many of those breaks went to the middle class. They did go to the fortunate few. Now we have a budget deficit that is hemorrhaging and a middle class that is hurting.

Folks want to know what the difference is between the various parties with respect to tax reform. The difference could not be clearer tonight between what I have proposed, a Fair Flat Tax Act, and what the advisory panel proposed this afternoon. I hope the Senate can come together, as was done in 1986, and cleanse the tax system again, since that exercise has not been pursued in 20 years. It can be done on a bipartisan basis as was done in 1986.

I look forward to working with colleagues. I serve on the Finance Committee where such a debate will start. I look forward to working with colleagues on a bipartisan basis.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month and 2005 marks more than 20 years that National Breast Cancer Awareness Month has educated women about early breast cancer detection, diagnosis, and treatment.

Yet, more than three million women currently live with breast cancer and the causes of this disease are still mostly unknown. While we have made significant advances in treatment, so much more needs to be done when it comes to prevention of this often fatal disease.

The Breast Cancer Environmental Research Act, S. 757, would enhance breast cancer environmental research across the country. This bill which is modeled after the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program, would over 5 years, invest $30 million through a peer-reviewed grant process to establish a multi-disciplinary approach.

At this time, four research centers study prenatal-adult environmental exposures that may cause breast cancer. And while this is a good start, we need a nationally focused, collaborative and comprehensive strategy to approach this and the Breast Cancer Environmental Research Act would do just that.

This country has great resources when it comes to medical and scientific research. I believe this bill would provide an efficient and effective strategy for developing research in the environmental causes of this tragic disease.

Mr. President, today I am proposing a Fair Flat Tax Act that will finally provide real tax relief to America's hurting middle class. It will do so by making the tax system simpler, flatter and fairer. And at the same time, it will begin to reduce the deficit that is destabilizing our economy, our security and our future.

This tax reform proposal is simpler because it's easier to understand and use. My legislation will include a new, simplified 1040 form that is one page, 30 lines, for every individual taxpayer.

This plan is flatter because it collapses the current system of six individual tax brackets down to three--15, 25 and 35 percent--and creates a flat corporate rate of 35 percent.

Ultimately, this plan is fairer because it changes the laws that disproportionately favor the most affluent Americans and corporations at the expense of the middle class. Instead, it provides a major middle-class tax cut--paid for by the elimination of scores of tax breaks in the individual and corporate income tax breaks, and by repealing the Bush tax cuts that favored the most fortunate few at the expense of the many.

This plan is fairer for American taxpayers because it treats work and wealth equally.

This is a radical statement about tax law: America can do better than a two-tier system which forces a policeman to pay a higher effective tax rate than an investor who makes his income on capital gains and dividends.

Under the current Federal Tax Code, all income is not created equal in this country. Americans who work for wages, in effect, subsidize the tax cuts and credits and deferrals of those who make money through unearned income--the dividends from investments. It's time to treat all taxpayers the same.

Let me be clear: I am not interested in soaking investors. I am a Democrat who believes in markets, and creating wealth. But what our country is all about is equality, and our Tax Code should treat everyone's income more equally too.

My legislation, The Fair Flat Tax Act of 2005, adapts the flat tax idea to help reduce the deficit instead, through fewer exclusions, exemptions, deductions, deferrals, credits and special rates for certain businesses and activities, and through the setting of a single, flat corporate rate of 35 percent. On the individual side, it ends favoritism for itemizers while improving deductions across the board: The standard deduction would be tripled for single filers from $5,000 to $15,000 and raised from $10,000 to $30,000 for married couples. Six individual rates are collapsed into three progressive rates of 15 percent, 25 percent and 35 percent, and income from all sources is taxed the same.

Several deductions used most frequently by individuals, those for home mortgage interest and charitable contributions, and the credits for children, education and earned income are retained. No one would have to calculate their taxes twice: this proposal eliminates the individual Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which could snare as many as 21 million American taxpayers in 2006.

This proposal would eliminate an estimated $20 billion each year in special breaks for corporations, and direct the Treasury Secretary to identify and report to Congress an additional $10 billion in savings from tax expenditures that subsidize inefficiencies in the health care system. Eliminating these breaks would sustain current benefits for our men and women in uniform, our veterans and the elderly and disabled--as well as breaks that promote savings and help families pay for health care and education.

What makes the Fair Flat Tax Act truly unique is that it corrects one of the most glaring inequities in the current tax system: regressive State and local taxes. Under current law, low and middle income taxpayers get hit with a double whammy: compared to wealthy Americans, they pay more of their income in State and local taxes. Poor families pay more than 11 percent and middle income families pay about 10 percent of their income in State and local taxes, while wealthier taxpayers only pay five percent. And because many low and middle income taxpayers don't itemize, they get no credit on their Federal form for paying State and local taxes. In fact, two-thirds of the Federal deduction for State and local taxes goes to those with incomes above $100,000. Under the Fair Flat Tax Act for the first time the Federal code would look at the entire picture, at an individual's combined Federal, State and local tax burden, and give credit to low and middle income individuals to correct for regressive State and local taxes.

Repealing some individual tax credits, deductions and exclusions from income--along with some serious changes to the corporate Tax Code-- enables larger standard deductions and broader middle-class tax relief.

The deductions most important to most Americans remain in place: the home mortgage deduction stays, as do child credits and charitable contributions, higher education and health savings.

What all this means for American taxpayers is--the vast majority of taxpayers will see a cut, particularly the middle class. Congressional Research Service experts tell us that middle class families and families with wage and salary incomes up to $150,000 will see tax relief.

On the corporate side--this plan does something that may not be popular, but it's right.

Each of us, including America's corporations, need to pay our fair share. Corporations that have used tax loopholes to avoid paying their fair share of taxes are going to see those loopholes close and they're going to contribute.

This legislation makes concrete progress toward deficit reduction. There's a long way to go to stop the hemorrhaging in the Federal budget, but this legislation makes a real start by whittling the deficit down approximately $100 billion over five years.

Some may wonder if what I am proposing today is a response to the President's Tax Reform Advisory Panel. To date, the Panel hasn't officially released its recommendations. I can't respond to something that hasn't been introduced yet. But I am troubled by the fact that the recommendations trickling out from the Panel would continue to twist the Tax Code away from equal treatment of all income, widening the chasm between people who get wages and people who collect dividends.

I am introducing The Fair Flat Tax Act of 2005 today to provide Americans a plan based on common-sense principles that can make the Tax Code work better.

Making the Tax Code simpler and flatter is going to make it fairer. My legislation is going to provide real relief to the middle class. It will treat work and wealth equally. It will make a start at reducing the deficit. I am ready to get to work with my colleagues and move it forward.

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

Mr. President, today I am proposing a Fair Flat Tax Act that will finally provide real tax relief to America's hurting middle class. It will do so by making the tax system simpler, flatter and fairer. And at the same time, it will begin to reduce the deficit that is destabilizing our economy, our security and our future.

This tax reform proposal is simpler because it's easier to understand and use. My legislation will include a new, simplified 1040 form that is one page, 30 lines, for every individual taxpayer.

This plan is flatter because it collapses the current system of six individual tax brackets down to three--15, 25 and 35 percent--and creates a flat corporate rate of 35 percent.

Ultimately, this plan is fairer because it changes the laws that disproportionately favor the most affluent Americans and corporations at the expense of the middle class. Instead, it provides a major middle-class tax cut--paid for by the elimination of scores of tax breaks in the individual and corporate income tax breaks, and by repealing the Bush tax cuts that favored the most fortunate few at the expense of the many.

This plan is fairer for American taxpayers because it treats work and wealth equally.

This is a radical statement about tax law: America can do better than a two-tier system which forces a policeman to pay a higher effective tax rate than an investor who makes his income on capital gains and dividends.

Under the current Federal Tax Code, all income is not created equal in this country. Americans who work for wages, in effect, subsidize the tax cuts and credits and deferrals of those who make money through unearned income--the dividends from investments. It's time to treat all taxpayers the same.

Let me be clear: I am not interested in soaking investors. I am a Democrat who believes in markets, and creating wealth. But what our country is all about is equality, and our Tax Code should treat everyone's income more equally too.

My legislation, The Fair Flat Tax Act of 2005, adapts the flat tax idea to help reduce the deficit instead, through fewer exclusions, exemptions, deductions, deferrals, credits and special rates for certain businesses and activities, and through the setting of a single, flat corporate rate of 35 percent. On the individual side, it ends favoritism for itemizers while improving deductions across the board: The standard deduction would be tripled for single filers from $5,000 to $15,000 and raised from $10,000 to $30,000 for married couples. Six individual rates are collapsed into three progressive rates of 15 percent, 25 percent and 35 percent, and income from all sources is taxed the same.

Several deductions used most frequently by individuals, those for home mortgage interest and charitable contributions, and the credits for children, education and earned income are retained. No one would have to calculate their taxes twice: this proposal eliminates the individual Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which could snare as many as 21 million American taxpayers in 2006.

This proposal would eliminate an estimated $20 billion each year in special breaks for corporations, and direct the Treasury Secretary to identify and report to Congress an additional $10 billion in savings from tax expenditures that subsidize inefficiencies in the health care system. Eliminating these breaks would sustain current benefits for our men and women in uniform, our veterans and the elderly and disabled--as well as breaks that promote savings and help families pay for health care and education.

What makes the Fair Flat Tax Act truly unique is that it corrects one of the most glaring inequities in the current tax system: regressive State and local taxes. Under current law, low and middle income taxpayers get hit with a double whammy: compared to wealthy Americans, they pay more of their income in State and local taxes. Poor families pay more than 11 percent and middle income families pay about 10 percent of their income in State and local taxes, while wealthier taxpayers only pay five percent. And because many low and middle income taxpayers don't itemize, they get no credit on their Federal form for paying State and local taxes. In fact, two-thirds of the Federal deduction for State and local taxes goes to those with incomes above $100,000. Under the Fair Flat Tax Act for the first time the Federal code would look at the entire picture, at an individual's combined Federal, State and local tax burden, and give credit to low and middle income individuals to correct for regressive State and local taxes.

Repealing some individual tax credits, deductions and exclusions from income--along with some serious changes to the corporate Tax Code-- enables larger standard deductions and broader middle-class tax relief.

The deductions most important to most Americans remain in place: the home mortgage deduction stays, as do child credits and charitable contributions, higher education and health savings.

What all this means for American taxpayers is--the vast majority of taxpayers will see a cut, particularly the middle class. Congressional Research Service experts tell us that middle class families and families with wage and salary incomes up to $150,000 will see tax relief.

On the corporate side--this plan does something that may not be popular, but it's right.

Each of us, including America's corporations, need to pay our fair share. Corporations that have used tax loopholes to avoid paying their fair share of taxes are going to see those loopholes close and they're going to contribute.

This legislation makes concrete progress toward deficit reduction. There's a long way to go to stop the hemorrhaging in the Federal budget, but this legislation makes a real start by whittling the deficit down approximately $100 billion over five years.

Some may wonder if what I am proposing today is a response to the President's Tax Reform Advisory Panel. To date, the Panel hasn't officially released its recommendations. I can't respond to something that hasn't been introduced yet. But I am troubled by the fact that the recommendations trickling out from the Panel would continue to twist the Tax Code away from equal treatment of all income, widening the chasm between people who get wages and people who collect dividends.

I am introducing The Fair Flat Tax Act of 2005 today to provide Americans a plan based on common-sense principles that can make the Tax Code work better.

Making the Tax Code simpler and flatter is going to make it fairer. My legislation is going to provide real relief to the middle class. It will treat work and wealth equally. It will make a start at reducing the deficit. I am ready to get to work with my colleagues and move it forward.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized at this time.

Mr. President, a few months ago, the President signed into law an Energy bill that did virtually nothing to prepare America for any kind of crisis for a disruption in the oil supply. Now, a few months after that new law was signed, a scavenger hunt is underway to come up with yet another bill to address the issues that Congress ignored in the 2005 Energy bill.

The problem is that much of the new legislation tracks the troublesome trends of the bill that was signed. What I want to do this morning is spend a few minutes talking about why I think that is the case, why I think this legislation is misguided, and then to suggest some alternatives.

The central problem, in my view, is that this new legislation essentially says to these well-stuffed, well-oiled energy lobbies: We will give you more than you got. This is on top of the fact that oil refiners have seen their profits skyrocket by 255 percent over the last year, an extraordinary fact--a 255-percent increase in profits for the oil-refining sector. And now we are talking about another piece of legislation to subsidize these folks and others who are literally swimming in cash today.

I do not believe that one of Congress's top priorities, after the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, should be to help these special interest lobbies that already are swimming in cash.

There are too many Americans who are far from swimming in those kinds of funds. They are still trying to clean up the flood waters. They are mucking out their homes in the State of the Presiding Officer, Louisiana. They are trying to rebuild from the rubble of south Mississippi. Many of them do not have a dime to their name. I believe it would be shameful if Congress returns to business as usual writing blank checks for these powerful energy lobbies, using the storms in the wake of these hurricanes as an excuse, as a Trojan horse, for handouts to the powerful energy lobbies in this country.

Let me outline the exact status of the subsidies that are on the books now and what was added in the bill in 2005. Under the laws already on the books before the Energy bill was enacted, oil and gas industries were on tap to get about $1.4 billion in tax breaks and other subsidies for a total of $6 billion in taxpayer subsidies over the next 5 years.

With the Energy bill signed into law, the oil and gas interests will get another $2.6 billion of additional tax breaks and subsidies on top of what they were already slated to receive. That includes an ability to write off up to 50 percent of their costs in the first year, to name just one of the special interest breaks that was in the legislation. But now we are talking about letting those who have received these huge subsidies get another opportunity at the all-you-can-eat buffet.

So the taxpayers and consumers who are footing the bill for hurricane cleanup, paying for tax cuts for some who are extremely affluent, are now going to be faced with the prospect of paying for additional subsidies for these energy interests.

Two weeks ago, the House passed legislation to provide additional financial subsidies to benefit the oil refining industry. Under the House legislation, refineries would get a regulatory risk insurance program to cover all the refineries' costs if their production is reduced because of a delay in the permitting process.

There is no limit on the amount of these subsidies for refineries, while the refineries get essentially guaranteed cost protection. What the Federal Government is essentially doing is privatizing the gains of these refineries and socializing the risks. There is absolutely nothing in the legislation to require refineries to protect consumers from the soaring costs they face today.

In my view, there is no need for these refiners, whose profits increased more than 250 percent in the last year, to get even greater financial rewards on top of the subsidies they are already getting in the brandnew energy law. In effect, what we are talking about is the prospect that these energy lobbies will become triple-dippers. They already received big subsidies in the old law. Then they received additional subsidies in the just-signed legislation.

We are talking about a third dip, a third round of subsidies, and I happen to think that is too much. Even the President said when oil is trading at upwards of $55 a barrel the oil companies do not need incentives to produce more. When the President, who certainly is not hostile to oil interests, says the oil companies do not need a deal from the Government, that ought to tell us something.

With oil selling for what is getting to be close to $70 a barrel, Congress should not be giving more taxpayer money away to these energy interests.

What I suggest is two practical steps that Congress ought to look at as we consider energy legislation in the days ahead.

First, I think the Congress should freeze the new subsidies that Congress lavished on the oil interests that are now earning record profits from record high prices. Nobody is talking about taking away what was there before the 2005 law was passed. What was there before the 2005 law was passed would remain in place. What I am talking about this morning is freezing the new subsidies, the new dollars that Congress just passed, despite the fact that the President of the United States said it was not even needed. What I would propose by freezing those new subsidies is that the Congress redirect those dollars to help low-income Americans who are at risk, literally, of freezing in their homes this winter.

For example, the $2.6 billion in new subsidies for oil interests could be used to pay for weatherization assistance to more than 1 million low-income homes, taking basic steps to improve energy conservation. Adding insulation and sealing energy-leaking windows and doors can help these families reduce their heating bills substantially.

Congress could help consumers further by using the Federal Government's purchasing power to make taxpayer energy dollars go further. The Federal Government is the largest consumer of energy in the country. The Federal Government could use its substantial purchasing power to get some real discounts in the marketplace for the Government's energy purchases. These cost savings could be achieved not only for direct energy purchases for Federal agencies' power needs but especially for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Instead of reimbursing consumers for their sky high energy bills when they come due, the billions of dollars spent each year under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program could be used up front to acquire lower cost energy to help low-income Americans.

So the question is, Is the Federal Government going to be a smart shopper? Is the Federal Government going to use its marketplace clout for programs such as the one that serves low-income people to make sure that the Government gets more for its money?

Everybody in the private sector shops that way. They are in a position to make volume purchases. They go to the people with whom they contract, and they say: We are going to buy a lot of your product, give us a deal.

This is essentially what I am proposing be done for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program: the Federal Government use its clout in the marketplace, the Federal Government use its purchasing power to get discounts for this program and to acquire lower cost energy to help low-income Americans.

The bottom line is our country can do better. I believe we could have done better in the Energy bill that was just passed. It seems incredible that just a few months after that law was passed and there were great celebrations

about what a difference it would make, now the Congress is back on a scavenger hunt to try to come up with legislation that does what should have been done in the first bill.

The reality is we now have a second chance to do better. I am of the view that lives depend on the Congress doing better not just in homes where heat is going to be scarce this winter but for generations to come.

When I came to the Senate floor to speak in opposition to the Energy bill a few months ago, I was sorry because that legislation failed to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil by one drop. It failed to reduce the prospects that America would again go to war in the Persian Gulf. After 9/11, it became clear that the energy policy was a national security issue and reducing our dependence on foreign oil had to be a national security priority.

I am of the view that the great tragedy in the 2005 Energy bill is that it essentially ratified pre-9/11 energy priorities. For the longer term, Congress should look at smart, probusiness, and proconsumer initiatives. I am willing, for example, to look at a limited antitrust exemption to let oil companies coordinate the refinery shutdowns expressly to keep supplies up and prices down. So there can be plenty of opportunities to put together a business and consumer coalition to meet the needs of our public.

I just suggested something that I suspect in the southern part of the United States, in the State of Louisiana, would be something that would be well received by oil refiners, but I am also saying that at a time when refiner profits are up more than 250 percent that we ought to be looking at other ideas that really help the consumer.

When gas prices are topping $3 a gallon and we are seeing these increases in home heating prices, we know the public is prepared for change. I have laid out a number of areas this morning where change would be in the interest of the consuming public and be smart probusiness policy, but I think there ought to be more to an energy policy than just ladling out tax subsidies. We have done that again and again. The Congress just poured on more subsidies in the 2005 bill and did absolutely nothing to deal with the crisis that we have seen in the last few months.

So at this crucial time, with the eyes of the country upon us, let us look at a fresh energy policy, one that will meet this country's national security needs, one that will meet the needs of our consumers this winter at a time when they are so vulnerable. And let us learn that just handing out subsidies willy-nilly is not going to make the real energy problems of this country go away.

It is no time to further sate the appetites of the entrenched energy interests. It is time, and there is a chance now, for a fresh start on energy policy. This time, with the next Energy bill, let us do right by the people of this country.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kristen Averyt, a fellow in my office, be given the privilege of the floor during today's session.