Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business and that the time be taken out of the time allocated to speak on the nomination.

Mr. President and colleagues, on Friday, the President said he would veto any changes that would, in his words, undermine the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

As one Democratic Senator who voted for the program and who wants to work very much in a bipartisan way to fix this program, I would ask this afternoon, with all due respect, that the President of the United States reconsider his position.

The President says that making changes to the Medicare drug benefit is going to take away benefits our seniors need. But I believe that smart changes now are the key to preserving seniors' benefits. Wise changes are not going to endanger the Medicare drug benefit, but, mark my words, refusing to mend it could end it. Spiraling costs and the low levels of participation we have seen thus far may jeopardize the very survival of the Medicare drug benefit.

Colleagues, the reason I believe that is the combination of these costs that continue to soar--they were originally appraised at about $400 billion; now they are upwards of $700 billion, and there are some estimates of $1 trillion--the combination of the escalating costs and the paltry rate of seniors signing up, at least to date, means this program will require a great deal of money to be spent on a relatively small number of people. That is not a prescription for the program to survive.

I, for one, as someone who voted for this program and who feels passionately that it is important to get this right, hope the Senate comes together to try to put in place the changes that the program needs to get it back on track. I simply believe ignoring the obvious problems I have mentioned and the threat to veto any bipartisan solution is not a productive or responsible reaction.

Making changes to contain costs and increase participation--making those changes on a bipartisan basis--is precisely what the Congress and the administration ought to be spending their time doing. I, for one, think the legislation that Senator Snowe and I have worked on for more than 3 years is a very good place to start. But, obviously, colleagues of both parties have other ideas.

I see my friend, the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, in the Chamber. He and I served in the House on the Health Committee. He has excellent ideas with respect to ways to hold down some of the costs in the Medicare program overall, particularly in the preventive area. I think he is dead on target. Senator Snowe and I have what we think is a bipartisan first step with respect to getting the prescription drug program back on track. But certainly colleagues in this body have other ideas.

The reason Senator Snowe and I advocate the approach we are taking is that it essentially builds on what is going on in the private sector. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why Medicare will not be a smart shopper the way everybody else is in the private sector. I have said that Medicare, as a purchaser, is pretty much like the fellow in Price Club buying toilet paper one roll at a time. Nobody would shop that way. It defies common sense because all across the country, if you are interested in purchasing something, and you are already going to purchase a certain amount, and you agree to buy more of it, then people give you a discount. It is just economics 101. Yet Medicare has not gotten that message.

So under the legislation that Senator Snowe and I have been pursuing, we take a sharp-pencil, fact-based, cost-containment approach that essentially builds on what is going on in the private sector across the country.

In addition to the effort to use those private sector cost- containment techniques, we would provide that drug prices be monitored to make sure artificial price increases do not negate the benefit to older people. We would make sure that seniors have the information about real savings so they can choose the plan that best makes sense for them.

It seems to me, by refusing the opportunity to make any improvements to this program, the White House is writing a prescription for a program that cannot survive. I do not want to see that happen. A number of us in this body took some real risks to be part of this bipartisan plan. What I want to do is roll up my sleeves and work with the President, work with colleagues of both political parties, on a bipartisan, cost-containment strategy that will save this program. That is what this effort ought to be all about: saving this program.

I am not the only one who believes that Medicare's needs ought to take precedence at this time. Here is what David Walker, the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office, said recently:

The Medicare problem is about seven times greater than the

Social Security problem and it has gotten much worse. It is

much bigger, it is much more immediate and it is going to be

much more difficult to effectively address.

The President has said he is going to tackle Medicare when he is done with Social Security. But the facts are the facts, and the timetable for trouble in Medicare is a lot tighter. At the very least now, changes should be made to shore up the newest element of Medicare: the hard-won prescription drug benefit, that every time we turn around the costs go up and up.

So it is time to introduce the cost-containment, attention-to-detail, and sharp-pencil accounting that has been lacking in this program so far. I want to make it clear, failure to put in place those kinds of approaches jeopardizes, in my view, the very survival of this program. I do not want to see that happen.

Like a lot of colleagues--and the Senator from Oklahoma has devoted his professional life to health care--I feel very strongly about this subject. I got involved in health care back in the days when I was codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers and I could only dream about this kind of opportunity for public service and to get this issue right.

The reason I voted for the legislation initially is I thought it was a first step. I thought it was a constructive step because it would help people with very big bills and very low incomes. There were a lot of other deficiencies in it, but I thought: At least we are getting started because we are helping two groups where the need is very great. But I think the events of the last few months, as I say, raise real questions about whether this program can survive. I do not think, frankly, the prescription drug benefit program can stand a whole lot more bad news.

So what I would hope we would do, in addition to having the debate about exactly how much this has gone up--it is very obvious it has gone up and up repeatedly, and is sure to go up even more--is spend our time with our sleeves rolled up, working in a bipartisan way, working with the President of the United States, to make sure this program delivers on its promise.

A good prescription drug benefit is something this country can't afford not to have. Senator Coburn knows about this. He has probably heard exactly the same experience I hear from physicians in Oregon who tell me that they have actually put seniors in hospitals because there is not an outpatient prescription drug benefit. That is pretty bizarre, even by the standards of Washington, DC, to have people go into a hospital, roll up these enormous costs under what is called Part A of Medicare, because we don't have a sensible, well-designed prescription drug benefit on an outpatient basis under Part B of the program.

When people say we cannot afford to do this, I think we can't afford not to do it. But it has to be properly designed. It has to be structured so as to make the best possible use of taxpayer resources during a belt-tightening time in our Government.

I hope the President will reconsider his position. I hope the President will recall his threat to veto changes to the Medicare drug benefit. I assure colleagues, particularly colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that I want to work with them in a bipartisan way. Having voted for this legislation and having the welts on my back to show for it, I want this legislation to succeed. So Congress has some heavy lifting ahead to make sure there are responsible, practical adjustments to this program that are going to save it for the future and to get the job done right for the country's older people.

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

Mr. President, the staggering cost estimates for the Medicare prescription drug benefit, coupled with the small number of seniors who have signed up so far, has threatened the very survival of this program. I do not want to see that happen, having voted for this program. I want to see the Senate take the steps to ensure that it works; that it delivers medicine to our seniors in a cost-effective way, and ensures that it reaches the hopes and expectations that millions of older people and their families have for this program.

The fact is, the Medicare prescription drug program now faces two very serious problems. The first is the skyrocketing cost. These are the costs we have been debating throughout the week, that have been far greater than anyone could have predicted.

A second problem may also herald very big concerns. To date, a small number of older people have signed up for the first part of the drug benefit, the drug card. So what you have is a pretty combustible mix. The combination of escalating costs and a skimpy number of older people signing up thus far raises the very real problem that a huge amount of Government money will be spent on a very small number of people. That is a prescription for a program that cannot survive.

I do not want to see that happen. As someone who voted for this program and worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make this program work to meet the urgent needs of the Nation's older people, I think the Senate ought to be taking corrective action and take corrective action now, in order to deal with what I think are looming problems.

As I said, we learned a bit about the escalating costs of the program. But when you couple that with low levels of participation by older people, that is particularly troublesome. I think it is fair to say, if the drug card debacle--the first part of the program and the small number of older people signing up for the drug card continues into the full benefit phase of the program, what you have is a situation where I believe people are going to say this program cannot be justified at a time of scarce Government resources.

To turn for a moment to the drug card part of the program that I don't think has been discussed much lately, the choices are eye- glazing. There are more than 70 cards available; 39 you can get in any part of the country, the other 30-plus you can get only in some States. The Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services reported in an informal survey that the program information was confusing and inadequate.

What makes it amazing is that a lot of folks who were looking at it are people who were relatives of HHS employees. So you have a situation where even folks connected with those who would know a fair amount about this program are having difficulty sorting through it.

I have come to the floor today to try to sound a wake-up call, to say those of us who voted for the program, like myself, and those who opposed it, we ought to be working together on a bipartisan basis now to correct it. The first part of that effort should be to put in place sensible cost containment like we see in the private sector. It is incomprehensible to me that this program is not using the kind of cost containment strategies that you see in Minnesota and Oregon and all across the country.

The Medicare Program is pretty much like a fellow standing in the Price Club who buys one roll of toilet paper at a time. They are not shopping in a smart way. They are not using their purchasing power. I and Senator Snowe have sought to correct that and

to take steps to use sensible cost containment strategies and ensure that the costs of this program are held down.

Second, I think we need to take steps to make sure that some of the mistakes of the past are avoided. CMS, the agency charged with dealing with this program, needs people with expertise to answer the questions of seniors and family members. There needs to be better information, on the net and elsewhere, that is not incomprehensible gobbledygook. Seniors are going to need information about real savings for each plan. Pie-in-the-sky projections, which is what they have gotten thus far, are not going to cut it. That is what we saw this week with respect to these cost estimates. Suffice it to say, the U.S. Congress is not satisfied.

I believe without effective cost containment and without good administration of the program, particularly as it moves into this next stage, we are going to see the bills continue to run up and we are going to see the participation of seniors continue to run down. That is a prescription for a Government program that cannot survive. I do not want to see that.

I stuck my neck out in order to get that legislation passed. I believe it can survive. Congress needs to hustle, now, to mend it, to mend it with sensible bipartisan cost containment along the lines of what is used in the private sector; mend it with changes in the way the program is administered so it goes into the second phase without some of the problems we saw connected with the drug card. I just hope, as a result of what the Congress has learned this week, that there has been a real wake-up call as to how urgent it is that Congress take these corrective steps and that Congress move quickly. I believe this program now, because of the huge new cost estimates and the problems with getting folks signed up, could well be headed for life support.

I don't want to see that. I think it would be a tragedy. I want the program that I voted for to work. That means it has to be supplemented with good cost containment and improvements in the way it is administered. I intend to work with my colleagues, particularly on the other side of the aisle--Senator Snowe and Senator McCain, who joined me in this legislation--to deal with the cost containment features, plus many colleagues on this side of the aisle who have bills of their own.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Capital Construction Fund Qualified Withdrawal Act of 2005. My friend and colleague, Senator Smith, joins me in introducing this important bill.

In January of 2000, a fishery disaster was declared by the Secretary of Commerce for the West Coast groundfish fishery. Due to major declines in fish population, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council decreased groundfish catch quotas by 90 percent. Today, the groundfish fishery in Oregon and adjoining States in the Pacific Northwest

continues to face daunting challenges as a result of this disaster. Fishery income has dropped 55 percent and over a thousand fishers face bankruptcy. This legislation helps by reforming the Capital Construction Fund in a way that will ease the transition by groundfishers and other fishers in economic peril away from fishing.

The Capital Construction Fund, CCF, Merchant Marine Act of 1936, amended 1969, 46 U.S.C. 1177, has been a way for fishers to accumulate funds, free from taxes, solely for the purpose of buying or refitting fishing vessels. It was conceived at a time when the Federal Government wanted to help capitalize and expand American fishing fleets. The program was a success: it led to a larger U.S. fishing fleet. However, fish populations declined and the U.S. commercial fishing fleet is now over-capitalized. The CCF's restrictions have not kept up with the times, and now it exacerbates some problems facing U.S. fisheries.

Now is the time to help those fishers who wish to do so to leave the fleet.

In Oregon, the amounts in CCF accounts range from $10,000 to over $200,000. This legislation changes current law to allow fishers to remove money from their CCF for purposes other than buying new vessels or upgrading current vessels, without losing up to 70 percent of their CCF funds in taxes and penalties. This legislation changes the CCF so fishers who want to opt out of fishing are not penalized for doing so.

This bill takes a significant step towards making the commercial fishing industry sustainable by amending the CCF to allow non-fishing uses of investments. This bill amends the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 and the Internal Revenue Code to allow funds currently in the CCF to be rolled over into an IRA or other type of retirement account, or to be used for the payment of an industry fee authorized by the fishery capacity reduction program, without adverse tax consequences to the account holders. This bill will also encourage innovation and conservation by allowing fishers to use funds deposited in a CCF to develop or purchase new gear that reduces bycatch.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Capital Construction Fund Qualified Withdrawal Act of 2005. My friend and colleague, Senator Smith, joins me in introducing this important bill.

In January of 2000, a fishery disaster was declared by the Secretary of Commerce for the West Coast groundfish fishery. Due to major declines in fish population, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council decreased groundfish catch quotas by 90 percent. Today, the groundfish fishery in Oregon and adjoining States in the Pacific Northwest

continues to face daunting challenges as a result of this disaster. Fishery income has dropped 55 percent and over a thousand fishers face bankruptcy. This legislation helps by reforming the Capital Construction Fund in a way that will ease the transition by groundfishers and other fishers in economic peril away from fishing.

The Capital Construction Fund, CCF, Merchant Marine Act of 1936, amended 1969, 46 U.S.C. 1177, has been a way for fishers to accumulate funds, free from taxes, solely for the purpose of buying or refitting fishing vessels. It was conceived at a time when the Federal Government wanted to help capitalize and expand American fishing fleets. The program was a success: it led to a larger U.S. fishing fleet. However, fish populations declined and the U.S. commercial fishing fleet is now over-capitalized. The CCF's restrictions have not kept up with the times, and now it exacerbates some problems facing U.S. fisheries.

Now is the time to help those fishers who wish to do so to leave the fleet.

In Oregon, the amounts in CCF accounts range from $10,000 to over $200,000. This legislation changes current law to allow fishers to remove money from their CCF for purposes other than buying new vessels or upgrading current vessels, without losing up to 70 percent of their CCF funds in taxes and penalties. This legislation changes the CCF so fishers who want to opt out of fishing are not penalized for doing so.

This bill takes a significant step towards making the commercial fishing industry sustainable by amending the CCF to allow non-fishing uses of investments. This bill amends the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 and the Internal Revenue Code to allow funds currently in the CCF to be rolled over into an IRA or other type of retirement account, or to be used for the payment of an industry fee authorized by the fishery capacity reduction program, without adverse tax consequences to the account holders. This bill will also encourage innovation and conservation by allowing fishers to use funds deposited in a CCF to develop or purchase new gear that reduces bycatch.

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

Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate got the eye-popping news that prescription drug benefits will cost far more than anyone had ever anticipated. In fact, the early appraisal was that it would cost $400 billion, and then it shot up to over $500 billion. Yesterday, we learned that it would cost $720 billion over the next decade, and perhaps would even go to $1 trillion. A lot of us in the Senate, frankly, were not too surprised because the legislation doesn't allow for the use of cost containment strategies that are utilized in the private sector.

To me, it is incomprehensible, for example, that Medicare, with all of its bargaining power, wouldn't use the same kind of clout that a timber company does in Alaska or Oregon or an auto company in the Midwest or any other big purchaser. Under this law as it is constituted today, what Medicare does is the equivalent of standing in the price club and buying toilet paper one roll at a time. There is absolutely nobody in the United States who goes out and purchases that way. What Medicare is going to be doing just defies common sense because we all know that if you buy more of something, whether in Oregon or in Alaska or anywhere else, you say, Let us try to negotiate a better deal. But Medicare is not allowed to do that under current circumstances.

I have come today to say that in addition to the debate about how the numbers are crunched, what we ought to be doing is working on a bipartisan basis to ensure that we have real cost containment in this program that seems to grow in costs almost by the day. I have worked with Senator Snowe for more than 3 years on legislation to do that. We have introduced it. It has bipartisan support.

On our side of the aisle, Senator Feinstein and Senator Feingold were original sponsors. Senator McCain joined Senator Snowe and me in this bipartisan effort. We simply believe that at a time when we are seeing so many Government programs cut and reduced and tremendous financial pressures for belt tightening, we shouldn't leave seniors without even the kind of private sector bargaining, the kind of private sector cost containment power that we see in communities all across the country.

I will tell you, I can't for the life of me figure out why Medicare shouldn't have the power to be a smart shopper. As it stands today, everybody in the United States tries to be a smart shopper instead of Medicare.

What I would like to do for a couple of moments is try to lay out the legislation that Senator Snowe and I have spent so much time working on and why I think it is particularly critical right now.

For a senior who lives in rural America where there may be only one private plan serving that area--and maybe there is no private plan at all--that senior is likely to be part of what is called the fallback plan. As of now, all of those seniors in those small communities, many of them in Arkansas--I see our distinguished colleague has joined us; like me, she vetted for the law. We would like to see people in Arkansas and Oregon, in areas with large, rural populations, have some bargaining power the way smart shoppers would. Under the Snowe-Wyden legislation, we say that the seniors in those fallback plans could in effect be part of a group that could use private sector bargaining power in order to hold costs down.

Many of us also represent the larger cities. I have Portland, but we want to hold down costs in Miami, New York, and Chicago. These people might have a choice of larger health programs to try to deal with their benefits. Maybe they are in a managed care organization or what is called a PPO, preferred provider organization. However, these private entities ought to have some bargaining power to hold down the cost for all of their members. Our bipartisan legislation that I have with Senator Snowe and Senator McCain stipulates we can have bargaining power for seniors in those metropolitan areas as well.

This legislation is going to save taxpayers money as well, not just seniors but taxpayers because, as the Senate knows, we put out a substantial amount of money to offer assistance to employers to not drop their coverage. When the Medicare plans save seniors money on medicine, that means less cost for the retiree plan to make up. Containing costs on the Medicare side, in our view, will help keep costs down for employers insuring retirees as well.

We have an opportunity to get beyond the debate about the numbers that came out in the last day or so, these shocking numbers that Medicare prescription drug care will cost $720 billion. We can get beyond those numbers and go to a comprehensive, bipartisan, market- based cost-containment strategy, a bipartisan plan that will contain costs for rural and urban seniors in plans across the country, in plans in rural and urban areas, and a plan that will also provide cost containment for employers insuring retirees as well.

It is our view we desperately need some common sense as it relates to cost containment for prescription drugs in our country. It is my view that giving bargaining power to millions of seniors through the private

sector is essentially Economics 101. There is no sense waiting when the costs of this program go up almost daily. It started at $400 billion, then $500 billion, now we are at $720 billion, and we are still counting. With these costs continuing to go through the stratosphere, the choice for the Senate, in my view, is to either sit around and say we will just wait and see what happens--and maybe the next report will put this at $1 trillion--or we can take the opportunity in a thoughtful, bipartisan way to do what is being done in communities all across the country.

Virtually everyone who buys in quantity says: Excuse me, wouldn't you be willing to give me a break given the fact I am making additional purchases? Medicare is not doing it. It defies common sense. We have a bipartisan opportunity to reign in these costs that continue to soar. I hope the Senate will do this as soon as possible.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in his inaugural address and again in the state of the union President Bush promised to take on tyranny around the world. There's one corner of the world where tyranny is the currency of the realm, and where one country stands head and shoulders above the rest for its record of brutality towards its own people and hostility toward its neighbors. That country is Iran.

The lifeblood of the Iranian economy is oil. Oil accounts for 80 percent of Iran's export earnings, almost half of the government's budget and nearly one-fifth of the country's GDP. Every time the price of crude oil rises $1 a barrel, Iran gains about $900 million in export revenues. Crude oil prices rose around $15 over the course of 2004, giving Iran a hurricane-force revenue windfall last year.

Although most U.S. energy companies ceased dealing with Iran when President Clinton imposed sanctions against the regime in 1995, some appear unable to resist the lure of investing in a country that holds 10 percent of the world's proven oil reserves, is OPEC's second largest producer and has the world's second largest natural gas reserves, behind Russia.

In June of last year, for example, a grand jury in the U.S. issued a subpoena to Halliburton seeking information on the work in Iran of its Cayman Islands subsidiary. The Department of Justice has an ongoing criminal investigation into whether Halliburton violated any laws by trading with Iran through a subsidiary. Just a few days ago, Halliburton's CEO announced the company would withdraw its employees from Iran and end its business activities there when it fulfills its ongoing contracts, including a $35 million gas drilling project it just won last month. GE just made a similar announcement about its subsidiary's activities in Iran.

Foreign companies seeking profits from Iran's energy reserves do not have to worry about such impediments as economic sanctions. Indeed, their governments often bless and sometimes lend Them a hand to help win lucrative contracts. When U.S.-based Conoco had to terminate its $550 million contract to develop some offshore oil and gas fields in 1995, France's Total and Malaysia's Petronas jumped in. In March 1999, France's Elf Aquitaine and Italy's Eni/Agip won a $1 billion contract for a secondary offshore recovery program. In April 1999, TotalFinaElf teamed up with Eni and Canada's Bow Valley Energy to develop an offshore oil field. Shell, BP and Lukoil are also frequently mentioned as being in the chase for Iranian oil and gas contracts. The Economist Intelligence Unit estimates Iran has attracted $15-$20 billion in combined foreign investment in hydrocarbons.

Not only are foreign companies heavily invested in Iran's hydrocarbon sector, but Iran ships some 2.6 million barrels of oil a day to Japan, China, South Korea, Taiwan and Europe.

If President Bush is serious about chasing down tyrants around the globe, he should use every possible means. The legislation I am introducing today, the Investor in Iran Accountability Act, would give the President a powerful tool by holding accountable those

who lend the Iranian regime crucial financial assistance by investing in its energy sector.

First, the legislation would shine a spotlight on those American companies, like Halliburton, which have used the loophole in the Iran sanctions act to continue to do business with Iran in the energy sector. The bill would require the Treasury Secretary to publish a list of the United States companies whose subsidiaries continue to do energy deals with Iran. While I personally do not believe there should be any more backdoor deals with Iran, my view is that an informed American public is best equipped to hold these companies accountable.

Second, the legislation would hold up to the light of public accountability those foreign companies that have more than $1 million invested in Iran's energy interests by requiring the Treasury Department to publish a list of those companies as well. Third, the legislation would give American investors for the first time an idea of those U.S. pension and retirement plans, mutual funds and other financial instruments that hold investments in these U.S. and foreign companies by requiring the Treasury Department to publish a list of all public and private U.S. financial interests that hold more than $100,000-worth of investment in these companies. Finally, because unilateral economic sanctions penalize American companies and open the field to foreign companies without inflicting any real economic pain on Iran, the bill directs the President to negotiate an end to foreign investment in Iran's energy sector with the appropriate foreign governments.

Some of my colleagues will remember that in the late 1970s and 1980s Congress struggled with ways to force the South African regime to abandon apartheid. One of the most effective tools in that fight was a public armed with information about which companies were doing business there so that American shareholders could choose to place their money elsewhere. The movement by American investors to rid their portfolios of holdings in companies that persisted in doing business with the apartheid regime in South African proved to be one of the most potent tools in the fight to end apartheid. This legislation will arm American investors with knowledge about which U.S. and foreign companies are supporting Iran's critical energy sector and which U.S. entities hold investments in them. With this knowledge, it is my hope that American investors will choose not to aid and abet the Iranian regime by continuing to hold shares in companies or funds that invest in the Iranian oil and gas sector.

The Iranian regime has made no secret of its desire to attract billions of dollars-worth of foreign investment, particularly to the energy sector. It even adopted a law in January 2003 specifically designed to attract foreign investors. Iran, which has recently discovered some new reserves of 30 billion barrels of crude oil, has ambitious plans to expand oil production from around 3.9 million barrels a day in 2004 to 5 million barrels a day in 2009. But with deteriorating equipment and the natural decline rate of existing wells, it simply cannot achieve those goals without significant foreign help.

In closing, I would point out that the Securities and Exchange Commission has determined that significant corporate operations in countries subject to U.S. economic sanctions, such as Iran, can represent a material risk to United States investors and that such investments should be properly disclosed. My bill would make sure this information is disclosed to the American public.

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

Mr. President, in his inaugural address and again in the state of the union President Bush promised to take on tyranny around the world. There's one corner of the world where tyranny is the currency of the realm, and where one country stands head and shoulders above the rest for its record of brutality towards its own people and hostility toward its neighbors. That country is Iran.

The lifeblood of the Iranian economy is oil. Oil accounts for 80 percent of Iran's export earnings, almost half of the government's budget and nearly one-fifth of the country's GDP. Every time the price of crude oil rises $1 a barrel, Iran gains about $900 million in export revenues. Crude oil prices rose around $15 over the course of 2004, giving Iran a hurricane-force revenue windfall last year.

Although most U.S. energy companies ceased dealing with Iran when President Clinton imposed sanctions against the regime in 1995, some appear unable to resist the lure of investing in a country that holds 10 percent of the world's proven oil reserves, is OPEC's second largest producer and has the world's second largest natural gas reserves, behind Russia.

In June of last year, for example, a grand jury in the U.S. issued a subpoena to Halliburton seeking information on the work in Iran of its Cayman Islands subsidiary. The Department of Justice has an ongoing criminal investigation into whether Halliburton violated any laws by trading with Iran through a subsidiary. Just a few days ago, Halliburton's CEO announced the company would withdraw its employees from Iran and end its business activities there when it fulfills its ongoing contracts, including a $35 million gas drilling project it just won last month. GE just made a similar announcement about its subsidiary's activities in Iran.

Foreign companies seeking profits from Iran's energy reserves do not have to worry about such impediments as economic sanctions. Indeed, their governments often bless and sometimes lend Them a hand to help win lucrative contracts. When U.S.-based Conoco had to terminate its $550 million contract to develop some offshore oil and gas fields in 1995, France's Total and Malaysia's Petronas jumped in. In March 1999, France's Elf Aquitaine and Italy's Eni/Agip won a $1 billion contract for a secondary offshore recovery program. In April 1999, TotalFinaElf teamed up with Eni and Canada's Bow Valley Energy to develop an offshore oil field. Shell, BP and Lukoil are also frequently mentioned as being in the chase for Iranian oil and gas contracts. The Economist Intelligence Unit estimates Iran has attracted $15-$20 billion in combined foreign investment in hydrocarbons.

Not only are foreign companies heavily invested in Iran's hydrocarbon sector, but Iran ships some 2.6 million barrels of oil a day to Japan, China, South Korea, Taiwan and Europe.

If President Bush is serious about chasing down tyrants around the globe, he should use every possible means. The legislation I am introducing today, the Investor in Iran Accountability Act, would give the President a powerful tool by holding accountable those

who lend the Iranian regime crucial financial assistance by investing in its energy sector.

First, the legislation would shine a spotlight on those American companies, like Halliburton, which have used the loophole in the Iran sanctions act to continue to do business with Iran in the energy sector. The bill would require the Treasury Secretary to publish a list of the United States companies whose subsidiaries continue to do energy deals with Iran. While I personally do not believe there should be any more backdoor deals with Iran, my view is that an informed American public is best equipped to hold these companies accountable.

Second, the legislation would hold up to the light of public accountability those foreign companies that have more than $1 million invested in Iran's energy interests by requiring the Treasury Department to publish a list of those companies as well. Third, the legislation would give American investors for the first time an idea of those U.S. pension and retirement plans, mutual funds and other financial instruments that hold investments in these U.S. and foreign companies by requiring the Treasury Department to publish a list of all public and private U.S. financial interests that hold more than $100,000-worth of investment in these companies. Finally, because unilateral economic sanctions penalize American companies and open the field to foreign companies without inflicting any real economic pain on Iran, the bill directs the President to negotiate an end to foreign investment in Iran's energy sector with the appropriate foreign governments.

Some of my colleagues will remember that in the late 1970s and 1980s Congress struggled with ways to force the South African regime to abandon apartheid. One of the most effective tools in that fight was a public armed with information about which companies were doing business there so that American shareholders could choose to place their money elsewhere. The movement by American investors to rid their portfolios of holdings in companies that persisted in doing business with the apartheid regime in South African proved to be one of the most potent tools in the fight to end apartheid. This legislation will arm American investors with knowledge about which U.S. and foreign companies are supporting Iran's critical energy sector and which U.S. entities hold investments in them. With this knowledge, it is my hope that American investors will choose not to aid and abet the Iranian regime by continuing to hold shares in companies or funds that invest in the Iranian oil and gas sector.

The Iranian regime has made no secret of its desire to attract billions of dollars-worth of foreign investment, particularly to the energy sector. It even adopted a law in January 2003 specifically designed to attract foreign investors. Iran, which has recently discovered some new reserves of 30 billion barrels of crude oil, has ambitious plans to expand oil production from around 3.9 million barrels a day in 2004 to 5 million barrels a day in 2009. But with deteriorating equipment and the natural decline rate of existing wells, it simply cannot achieve those goals without significant foreign help.

In closing, I would point out that the Securities and Exchange Commission has determined that significant corporate operations in countries subject to U.S. economic sanctions, such as Iran, can represent a material risk to United States investors and that such investments should be properly disclosed. My bill would make sure this information is disclosed to the American public.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to join my very dear friend and colleague, Senator Craig of Idaho, as his principal cosponsor on legislation to reauthorize a law that has spawned a revolution in forest dependent communities in 42 States and in over 700 counties across the country. Our bill will reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000.

This bill is short and simple but also extraordinary: it renews the original law and its programs for 8 more years. It also makes some technical and grammatical corrections to the original law and adds an oversight report on some of the projects done under this Act. As we introduce this bill today in the Senate, our friends and colleagues in the House are introducing the exact same bill with the same, bi- partisan spirit.

The reason we can pursue reauthorization of such a far reaching law with such little language is because the folks that it affects, the forest dependent communities, as well as the educators, the county leaders and the environmentalists in those communities, have made this law work. The reason we want to reauthorize this legislation is because these same folks want to continue the work this law allows

them to do together, on federal and private lands, and in rural communities.

The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of2000 is sustaining rural communities as well as encouraging industry and creating jobs based on natural resources. If I may paraphrase a famous commercial to describe this legislation, I'd say:

Stabilization of payments to counties for roads and schools--millions of dollars; Additional investments and the creation of new jobs through forest related projects--thousands of projects; Improving cooperative relationships among the people that use and care for federal lands: Priceless.

Title I of the Act stabilizes funding for public education in rural communities. It also fortifies local government budgets that provide health and safety services in rural America, as well as maintains the transportation corridors that move people and material to and from forest communities.

Title II of the Act provides resources for community-based stewardship for local federal lands. By establishing Resource Advisory Committees, RACs, tasked with reviewing and recommending to the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management projects to be completed on Federal lands that benefit the community and the federal lands associated with that RAC, this Act has resulted in over a thousand projects making Federal lands more environmentally healthy today than before this Act passed in 2000. RACs enlist community members representing environmental interests, recreations users, farmers, local officials and forest products industry. This collaborative planning of management of local Federal lands has put people to work building fish- friendly culverts; reducing hazardous fuel loads; enhancing picnic, camping and hiking facilities; and removing debris and noxious plant species.

The kinds of projects the RACs have supported are varied: watershed restoration and maintenance; wild life habitat restoration; native fisheries habitat enhancement; forest health improvements; wild land fire hazard reduction; control of noxious weeds; removal of trash and illegal dumps; road maintenance and obliteration; trail maintenance and obliteration; and campground maintenance.

Title III of the Act supports activities protecting federal infrastructure and the forest ecosystem. Fire Planning, emergency response, law enforcement and search and rescue services make federa1lands safe. They reinforce county government's commitment to the partnership between the Federal Government and local communities. These funds are being used to respond to forest fires conduct search and rescue missions and improve forest health while teaching at-risk children and rehabilitating prisoners in prison-work camp programs. Title III projects, like Title II projects, are also helping to develop cooperative projects between counties, local, State and Federal officials and agencies.

The Act's greatest financial footprint is felt in the West, but financial benefits flow to counties nationwide. Significant investment in Federal lands has taken or will take place: $121 million from Title II and $124 million from Title III. At least 1,168 Title II projects were approved during the Act's first two years.

Under the reauthorization we are sponsoring the payment amount will continue to be based on the average of timber receipts for the three top federal land timber production years: FY 1985 through FY 2000. Currently, on lands where there is no harvest and no safety net, the communities get no money. For those lands, funds will be provided from the general treasury. For others, there would be funds available, first from receipts but then from the general treasury. Still, for counties where the status quo is their best source of funds, they could stay with the status quo until they feel the need to use the safety net. No longer will there be an absolute a reliance on receipts, thus decreasing pressure on land managers to produce timber harvest for schools and counties. While there is widespread application of the Act, 86 percent of counties nationwide have opted for the ``stable payment;'' under the reauthorization bill, if a county that has been part of this Act would like to opt out it may do so. It is only fair to allow this, given that the county may have opted in by assuming the law would only last through 2006.

Very strong support exists across the nation from stakeholders for renewal of the Act past fiscal year 2006.

I urge my colleagues to work with me and my colleague across the aisle on this bi-partisan, bi-cameral effort to renew a law that is actually working on the ground.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my very dear friend and colleague, Senator Craig of Idaho, as his principal cosponsor on legislation to reauthorize a law that has spawned a revolution in forest dependent communities in 42 States and in over 700 counties across the country. Our bill will reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000.

This bill is short and simple but also extraordinary: it renews the original law and its programs for 8 more years. It also makes some technical and grammatical corrections to the original law and adds an oversight report on some of the projects done under this Act. As we introduce this bill today in the Senate, our friends and colleagues in the House are introducing the exact same bill with the same, bi- partisan spirit.

The reason we can pursue reauthorization of such a far reaching law with such little language is because the folks that it affects, the forest dependent communities, as well as the educators, the county leaders and the environmentalists in those communities, have made this law work. The reason we want to reauthorize this legislation is because these same folks want to continue the work this law allows

them to do together, on federal and private lands, and in rural communities.

The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of2000 is sustaining rural communities as well as encouraging industry and creating jobs based on natural resources. If I may paraphrase a famous commercial to describe this legislation, I'd say:

Stabilization of payments to counties for roads and schools--millions of dollars; Additional investments and the creation of new jobs through forest related projects--thousands of projects; Improving cooperative relationships among the people that use and care for federal lands: Priceless.

Title I of the Act stabilizes funding for public education in rural communities. It also fortifies local government budgets that provide health and safety services in rural America, as well as maintains the transportation corridors that move people and material to and from forest communities.

Title II of the Act provides resources for community-based stewardship for local federal lands. By establishing Resource Advisory Committees, RACs, tasked with reviewing and recommending to the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management projects to be completed on Federal lands that benefit the community and the federal lands associated with that RAC, this Act has resulted in over a thousand projects making Federal lands more environmentally healthy today than before this Act passed in 2000. RACs enlist community members representing environmental interests, recreations users, farmers, local officials and forest products industry. This collaborative planning of management of local Federal lands has put people to work building fish- friendly culverts; reducing hazardous fuel loads; enhancing picnic, camping and hiking facilities; and removing debris and noxious plant species.

The kinds of projects the RACs have supported are varied: watershed restoration and maintenance; wild life habitat restoration; native fisheries habitat enhancement; forest health improvements; wild land fire hazard reduction; control of noxious weeds; removal of trash and illegal dumps; road maintenance and obliteration; trail maintenance and obliteration; and campground maintenance.

Title III of the Act supports activities protecting federal infrastructure and the forest ecosystem. Fire Planning, emergency response, law enforcement and search and rescue services make federa1lands safe. They reinforce county government's commitment to the partnership between the Federal Government and local communities. These funds are being used to respond to forest fires conduct search and rescue missions and improve forest health while teaching at-risk children and rehabilitating prisoners in prison-work camp programs. Title III projects, like Title II projects, are also helping to develop cooperative projects between counties, local, State and Federal officials and agencies.

The Act's greatest financial footprint is felt in the West, but financial benefits flow to counties nationwide. Significant investment in Federal lands has taken or will take place: $121 million from Title II and $124 million from Title III. At least 1,168 Title II projects were approved during the Act's first two years.

Under the reauthorization we are sponsoring the payment amount will continue to be based on the average of timber receipts for the three top federal land timber production years: FY 1985 through FY 2000. Currently, on lands where there is no harvest and no safety net, the communities get no money. For those lands, funds will be provided from the general treasury. For others, there would be funds available, first from receipts but then from the general treasury. Still, for counties where the status quo is their best source of funds, they could stay with the status quo until they feel the need to use the safety net. No longer will there be an absolute a reliance on receipts, thus decreasing pressure on land managers to produce timber harvest for schools and counties. While there is widespread application of the Act, 86 percent of counties nationwide have opted for the ``stable payment;'' under the reauthorization bill, if a county that has been part of this Act would like to opt out it may do so. It is only fair to allow this, given that the county may have opted in by assuming the law would only last through 2006.

Very strong support exists across the nation from stakeholders for renewal of the Act past fiscal year 2006.

I urge my colleagues to work with me and my colleague across the aisle on this bi-partisan, bi-cameral effort to renew a law that is actually working on the ground.

Mr. President, Senator Snowe and I are once again teaming up to work on a bipartisan commonsense proposal to help America's seniors receive affordable prescription drugs. Our bill, ``The Medicare Enhancement for Needed Drugs Act'' or ``MEND Act'' focuses on cost containment.

At our request, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently reviewed drug cost trends. For 77 prescription drugs frequently used by seniors on Medicare the usual and customary price increased 21.8 percent from January 2000 through June 2004, a 4.6 percent average annual rate of increase. They also found that the process for the brand drugs increased 26.4 percent for that same time period whereas prices for generic drugs increased 8.3 percent. We need to make sure that Medicare has every weapon in its arsenal to assure seniors and Medicare get the best deal possible on prescription drug prices.

One of the most important tools for Medicare to use to assure better prescription drug prices for seniors is bargaining power. That tool is missing from the legislation Congress passed in 2003. The legislation that Senator Snowe and I are introducing today, the MEND Act, would provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services that tool. As responsible stewards of the taxpayers' money, Congress must provide Medicare all the tools, including bargaining power, in its cost containment arsenal.

This concept was endorsed by the outgoing Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson. The Congressional Budget Office in a letter to me last March stated that striking the so-called ``non interference'' provision in the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act could provide opportunities for savings.

In addition to providing the Secretary with bargaining power, the MEND Act will require the Secretary to negotiate on behalf of what are known as ``fall back'' plans, those plans that are provided when there is no choice of a drug plan and the company administering the benefit is not at risk. In addition, if any plan asks the Secretary for assistance in negotiations for any covered drug, the Secretary must assist the plan. Lower drug prices should mean lower premiums; lower out of pocket costs and a better benefit.

America's seniors are savvy and they will shop around for a plan that is going to provide them the best deal on prescriptions. That is why the MEND Act also requires Medicare to provide a comparison of how much a plan is saving seniors on the cost of the most commonly used drugs. Giving seniors more control over their health care and health care dollars will also help keep costs down.

Mr. President, Senator Snowe and I are once again teaming up to work on a bipartisan commonsense proposal to help America's seniors receive affordable prescription drugs. Our bill, ``The Medicare Enhancement for Needed Drugs Act'' or ``MEND Act'' focuses on cost containment.

At our request, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently reviewed drug cost trends. For 77 prescription drugs frequently used by seniors on Medicare the usual and customary price increased 21.8 percent from January 2000 through June 2004, a 4.6 percent average annual rate of increase. They also found that the process for the brand drugs increased 26.4 percent for that same time period whereas prices for generic drugs increased 8.3 percent. We need to make sure that Medicare has every weapon in its arsenal to assure seniors and Medicare get the best deal possible on prescription drug prices.

One of the most important tools for Medicare to use to assure better prescription drug prices for seniors is bargaining power. That tool is missing from the legislation Congress passed in 2003. The legislation that Senator Snowe and I are introducing today, the MEND Act, would provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services that tool. As responsible stewards of the taxpayers' money, Congress must provide Medicare all the tools, including bargaining power, in its cost containment arsenal.

This concept was endorsed by the outgoing Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson. The Congressional Budget Office in a letter to me last March stated that striking the so-called ``non interference'' provision in the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act could provide opportunities for savings.

In addition to providing the Secretary with bargaining power, the MEND Act will require the Secretary to negotiate on behalf of what are known as ``fall back'' plans, those plans that are provided when there is no choice of a drug plan and the company administering the benefit is not at risk. In addition, if any plan asks the Secretary for assistance in negotiations for any covered drug, the Secretary must assist the plan. Lower drug prices should mean lower premiums; lower out of pocket costs and a better benefit.

America's seniors are savvy and they will shop around for a plan that is going to provide them the best deal on prescriptions. That is why the MEND Act also requires Medicare to provide a comparison of how much a plan is saving seniors on the cost of the most commonly used drugs. Giving seniors more control over their health care and health care dollars will also help keep costs down.

Madam President, I note that we are in a quorum call. As a member of the Finance Committee, I am going to speak in favor of the Leavitt nomination to outline some of my concerns.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I note that the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and the ranking minority member will be here shortly to speak on the Leavitt nomination. Until they get here, I thought I would summarize my thoughts concerning this nomination.

I come to the Chamber to speak in favor of Mike Leavitt to head the Department of Health and Human Services.

I want to begin my brief remarks by talking about the importance of bipartisanship in the health care field and to note that at the end of the last session of the Congress, there was a bipartisan failure in the health care area, in my view, of enormous ramifications. At the end of the last session of the Congress, the Congress failed to provide the funding necessary for the office of Dr. David Brailer, who is, in effect, the national health care technology point man, to try to modernize decision making, record keeping, telemedicine, and other crucial matters in the health care field. His office, as a result of this bipartisan failure by the Congress, was essentially defunded. So what you have is a situation where both political parties talk a big game about health information technology, or IT. You hear senators of both political parties saluting the promise of this exciting field and talk about how committed they are, but the response of the Congress was to essentially defund it. So rhetoric has been in abundance; concrete support has been lacking.

I come to the Senate floor to say I very much hope--and Mike Leavitt has a great interest in health information technology--that this deficiency is corrected in this upcoming Congress because otherwise there will be great consequences.

First, I am concerned that as we see the move towards electronic medical records, these records and the placement of them is not being done in a fashion that will promote interoperability so that they are best in a position to be coordinated and maximize their value. They simply are not interoperable. It is a very significant concern. If we are going to see this trend toward electronic medical records and not take the steps to promote interoperability, that will be a very serious deficiency as we set up the new system and will cause a great deal of confusion.

Second, I am very concerned that in the information technology area, the big and powerful figures, be they high-tech companies or medical clinics, will be able to do this work, but it is not going to be done by the small physician offices and clinics. Dr. Brailer's office was the office that was in a position to give incentives to help those small offices go forward. That work is not being done.

Third, the very promising aspect of health technology has been in the area of regional offices, and now we are not seeing the funds that are necessary for those regional offices as well.

The Congress essentially zeroed out the money that Dr. Brailer needed. It was a modest amount, $50 million. My sense is to really promote health information technology, it is going to take much more significant sums, but to have this body on a bipartisan basis constantly talking about the value of health information technology and then taking the one program that would make a difference and zeroing it out is just unconscionable. Both political parties have let down what needs to be done in this critical area.

I see the chairman of the committee. I know he is very interested in health information technology, as is Senator Baucus. I hope to lead a bipartisan effort in this session of the Congress to ensure that Dr. Brailer's office gets the funds that are necessary.

The last couple of points I would make in support of the Leavitt nomination: First, on the question of Medicaid, Mike Leavitt told me, in response to a question I asked, that there was no plan to send a block grant proposal to the Congress. That was welcome news. But he left an awful lot of wiggle room in terms of the details, and so bipartisan concerns remain, concerns by the governors as well, about what is to come.

As one Senator who specializes in this field, I send a message that I am very supportive of the concept of health care waivers. I think that kind of flexibility is certainly a plus. We in Oregon have used them in a humanitarian way, to get better quality care to people for services that are medically effective. But there is a big difference between waivers that are borne out of a desire to use flexibility to serve people and a block grant proposal which just sets an arbitrary cap and cuts people off.

Finally, I want to talk about the importance of working in a bipartisan way to contain costs for prescription drugs under the new Medicare law. As one who voted for that law, believing it was important to get started, I said then that the next step has to be to put in place a real cost containment effort that looks particularly to the private sector. Senator Olympia Snowe, who serves with great distinction on the Finance Committee, will be introducing legislation with me next week that will say we are going to use private sector forces, marketplace forces, to hold down the costs of prescription drugs in our country. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why Weyerhauser, a big timber company, or an auto company, or a steel company, or any other big concern, has marketplace power to hold down the cost of medicine but the Medicare Program does not. In fact, I don't know of a single buyer in the private sector who, after they purchased a certain volume of a particular commodity, looks to buying another commodity and then doesn't ask for a discount, doesn't ask for some kind of benefit as a result of using their marketplace power.

So I am very hopeful. Mike Leavitt indicated last week he was open to discussions in this area. Certainly, again, there were no details discussed, but he showed a flexibility that I found welcome.

I see the chair and the ranking minority member here. I don't want to detain them. I urge the Senate to approve the nomination of Mike Leavitt when he comes up for a vote. I thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Grassley, and the ranking minority member for their indulgence so I could make these comments.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I do not want to turn this into a bouquet- tossing process, but I also want to commend our friend from Wyoming. I think he is going to do an excellent job in his new position. At the end of last year, we got a little bit more flexibility in terms of the interpretation of Leave No Child Behind Act because of the efforts with respect to hiring of rural teachers, and I thank him for his work on that, and certainly the bipartisan firm of Senators Kennedy, Dodd, Enzi, and Alexander is a force to contend with, and I am looking forward very much to working with them.

The confirmation of the Secretary of Education by the Senate, important as it is, is not the only important development in American education this week. I am sure many of our colleagues have heard about the remarks made by Harvard President Larry Summers this week, remarks that in effect said women may be underrepresented in math and sciences because of innate differences between men and women.

I spoke with Dr. Summers this morning. He made it clear to me that he is acutely aware that remarks he intended to be thought-provoking crossed the line. He knows that as president of one of America's most distinguished institutions, his views are heard worldwide. I expect he will continue to express his contrition to the Harvard community and educators around the country.

I have devoted a lot of time to this issue myself. In 2002, when I became chairman of the Subcommittee on Science, I pursued this issue on a bipartisan basis, particularly with Senator Allen of Virginia. Today I ask my colleagues the question of what ought to be on the table at this point, and that is what is going to be done now, what is going to be done immediately, to create more opportunities for girls and women to advance in science, math, engineering, and related fields?

It is very seldom, when a problem such as this comes up, that there is literally a tool right at our fingertips to solve the problem, but in studying this issue, in holding hearings on this issue, I became convinced that title IX of the Education Act can be the key to ensuring gender equity in critical academic fields for women.

Here is how title IX reads: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

It means any institution receiving Federal funds must make sure that women are treated equitably.

In the Senate, and certainly around the country, there is a common misconception that title IX is about sports. I think very few people are aware that primarily, at its roots, it is an academic statute. Athletics are certainly where we have seen the most progress under title IX. Before title IX, 1 in 17 girls in school played sports. Now it is 1 in 2.5, or 40 percent.

So I ask my colleagues, imagine if those same changes could be seen in math, science, and engineering, from the 20 percent of science undergraduates who are women today, to 40 percent or 50 percent; from the 6 percent of engineering professors who are women today to 40 percent.

The potential of title IX is enormous. Enforcing it in academic fields could revolutionize the study and application of math and science in our country.

Educators of good conscience should not wait for a Federal reprimand to comply with a Federal law that benefits all of us. Title IX ought to be a guiding principle in hiring, tenure, scholarships, and lab space for all scholars on all the academic campuses around our country. Title IX can finally give women studying science a fair shake where they have not gotten one before. It does not sound like a tall order, but it is not happening. Unfortunately, the Federal Government is not taking the lead in terms of tackling the issue.

For example, I asked the General Accounting Office to examine whether the Federal Government is following the law and enforcing title IX. What the General Accounting Office found was disappointing at best. They looked at the Department of Education, NASA, the Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation, and they found that little or no efforts were being made to ensure compliance with title IX requirements for grantees getting Federal dollars. Of all the agencies reviewed, the Department of Education was the only Federal agency that conducted any title IX compliance reviews. But they have not conducted a single review--not one--since 1995.

The Federal Government is not doing its part to ensure that title IX is being enforced for women and girls with the ability and the desire to work in math and science. I have asked Secretary of Education Paige and the President that title IX be enforced as intended. But today, colleagues, I formally call on the individual who will shortly be confirmed as the Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, to work to ensure that girls and women in our federally funded schools do not suffer discrimination in math and the sciences. I will tell you, it is an issue of economics, and it is also an issue of national security. A report from the Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security to 2025 warned that America's failure to invest in science and to reform math and science education was the second biggest threat to our national security. It warned that only the threat of a weapon of mass destruction in an American city was a greater danger. In fact, the Commission unanimously concluded that the danger from underinvesting in math and science and failing to reform math and science education was greater than the danger from any conceivable conventional war.

I do not see how America can meet its national security needs if it is not giving women a fair shake as it relates to opportunity in math and science. So on this Inauguration Day, I call on the new Education Secretary, the individual we will shortly confirm, to take this message of economic fairness and national security to heart.

The remarks that Dr. Summers has made, which have triggered such debate, have generated a new and important discussion about this issue. As the Senate confirms a new Education Secretary, I believe there is no better time to return our attention to the issue of how this body can advance opportunities for women in math and science, not by writing any new laws but by enforcing the laws on the books.

Colleagues, I would say--our new chair is here--it is one thing if Chairman Enzi has to get together with Senator Kennedy and Senator Alexander and Senator Dodd and write a whole new law. Here we have a law on the books, but the conception is that it is just for sports, and it has been a good sports statute. What I am saying is we can revolutionize opportunities for women in math and science if we use the law as it was originally intended.

Go talk to our former colleague, Senator Birch Bayh. Senator Bayh, who testified before my subcommittee, said this was primarily an academic statute, and he would very much like to see it used for opportunities for women.

The conversation I had with Dr. Summers this morning certainly was not over when we hung up the phones. What began as a controversy this week I hope is going to end with a bipartisan effort, like the one that Senator Allen and I launched several years ago, to make sure there are more opportunities for women and girls to enter the math and science fields. That is what I intend to pursue. I intend to do it on a bipartisan basis, working with our new chair and colleagues whom I know share this interest.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will not belabor this. I do believe I have to make a couple of responses with respect to the remarks made by the distinguished Senator from Tennessee.

I want to say first of all, I am talking about enforcing a law that is on the books. All I am talking about is the original intent of a law that is on the books, which is applied primarily to the academic field--not sports.

I want it understood that I am not talking about anything new. I am talking about enforcing the law that is on the books.

Second, making sure that I am specific with respect to what the Senator from Tennessee has said, all I am talking about is that women would get an equal shot at all of the slots in math and science. We know there can be different results based upon the qualifications of an individual. And universities don't need to have the exact same number of men and women for every position on their faculties. But what I want us to do--and what title IX is all about--is make sure that women have an equal shot at all of the slots that are available. It seems to me, if we don't do that, we are not complying with the law that is on the books.

I will tell you that we are not going to be able to meet the economic and national security needs of our country.

The Senator from Tennessee is always very gracious. I am anxious to work with him in these areas. I want to make sure and emphasize that I am talking about equal opportunity--an equal shot. That is the call that I am making today on the floor of the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I believe it is extraordinarily important for both sides to be gracious when an American election is over. But I also believe it is extraordinarily important not to ignore urgently needed election reform, such as requiring a paper trail for every single ballot that is cast in our country. Such a paper trial is required in my home State. In this last election, record numbers of Oregonians voted. There were no allegations of fraud. The system worked, and it worked well. Unfortunately, that is not the case in too many communities in our country.

When the Senate last debated the issue of election reform, this body spent weeks debating whether one dog in the Midwest was an illegal voter. I worked with colleagues on a bipartisan basis. We made sure that dog, Mitzi, would not be allowed to vote again. Now, in the name of justice, when hundreds of thousands of Americans feel they have been disenfranchised, I don't think their concerns ought to be swept under the rug.

Credible journalists have now documented voting irregularities across the country, and that ought to trouble every Member of the body. Incredible reports come from the States of North Carolina, Indiana, Washington, Florida, and Ohio. In my view, while not proving to be of a volume that would have changed the outcome of the Presidential election, when you take these findings together, they raise very significant and troubling matters that this body should be tackling on a bipartisan basis. I do believe there is critical work ahead of this body with respect to election reform. So I did write in November to Representative Conyers to ask that he examine these voting irregularities. The problems with provisional ballots in the State of Ohio particularly concerned me because I was one of the principal authors of the section of the Help America Vote Act that involved provisional ballots. The decision of the Ohio Secretary of State to restrict the ability of voters to use provisional ballots, I thought, was troubling. His decisions raised serious questions with respect to whether they were consistent with what the Senate had in mind as we wrote that provision.

I was also concerned about the reports from Ohio, where in one county only 800 citizens were registered to vote and more than 4,500 votes were counted. This just defies common sense, and it is one of the reasons why I have come to the floor to make the case for a continued focus on the issue of election reform.

The problems of election abuse are not ones that can be given short shrift if we are to keep faith with our citizens and ensure that their fundamental belief that our democratic system is sound is maintained. Otherwise, we will see a growing lack of confidence in the conduct of our elections, and that lack of confidence will come to overshadow some of our elections altogether. We will see many more Members of this body come to the floor demanding to know what has happened.

I end my statement with the plea that, on a bipartisan basis, this body return to the issue of election reform, correct the abuses that have been credibly documented over the last few weeks, and that we do it in a bipartisan fashion.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before he leaves the Chamber, I commend the majority leader for his interest in health care, in particular. I have always thought it is far away the most important issue at home. I have come to the Senate to talk about some of the opportunities in this session to work in a bipartisan way on these critical issues. In fact, I was going to mention that the Senator and I have pursued legislation to tackle the problem of child obesity. I appreciate the majority leader's interest in health care and look forward to working with him in this session.

Mr. President, colleagues, I have believed health care is the most important issue at home since my days as director of the Oregon Gray Panthers. I have thought health care was the most important issue because, in a sense, if our folks do not have their health, it is not possible to work, to learn, to raise children, or do much of anything the American people value.

For me, this is the big priority at home. When we look at what is happening today with medical costs gobbling up everything in sight, the demographic revolution with so many more older people, the tremendous lifesaving technologies we have today which, of course, carry a big price tag, all of these forces come together to present an issue that just cannot be ducked any longer. To put it in perspective, David Walker, the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office, put it pretty well, saying that the Medicare problem is about seven times greater than the Social Security problem and it has gotten much worse. It is

much bigger. It is more immediate. It is going to be much more difficult to effectively address.

That is the view of the Comptroller General. He is talking about Medicare. But in my view, the concerns that David Walker talks about with respect to Medicare extend to the health care system as a whole.

This afternoon for a few minutes I will chart a course as it relates to health care: first, a number of steps that could be taken right now that would significantly help the American people as we deal with this health care challenge. Then I will discuss, for the longer term, another bipartisan effort I have had a chance to team up with Senator Hatch on that will be implemented over the next few weeks.

But if I might, I would like to start with Medicare. I think Senator Frist is right; these Medicare costs are soaring. For the prescription drug legislation alone, it is clear now the price tag will be in the vicinity of $100 billion more than Congress originally calculated. That is the current estimate. Many have said it will be much greater. I think it is critically important that steps be taken to contain costs, particularly as relates to this fast-growing area that we will be faced with, that is prescription drugs.

We all hear about it from our constituents. Every time we are home, folks tell us about how skyrocketing prescription drug costs are such a hardship on them. They want to know what Congress is going to do to respond to it.

One of the things I think has been so exacerbating about this issue of cost containment as it relates to prescription drugs is that the Medicare program is not even employing the kind of cost containment tools you see in the private sector. If you are talking, for example, about a big timber company, the Presiding Officer (the Senator from Idaho) and I know big timber firms and other natural resources firms use their bargaining power in order to try to hold down the cost of medicine and other essentials. The Medicare program is not doing that. The Medicare program is not using the kind of bargaining power that exists in the private sector today.

In fact, if you are an older person, and you go off and purchase your medicine, either now or even in the future, under many of the plans that will be offered under the new program, you have no bargaining power, and in effect you are subsidizing those big private-sector buyers, whether they are steel firms, timber firms, auto companies, or various other kinds of concerns. I do not think that is right.

(Mr. TALENT assumed the chair.)

I am very pleased I have had a chance over the last few years to team up with Senator Snowe of Maine on a bipartisan effort to contain those prescription drug costs, using essentially the model of more bargaining power the way private sector firms have.

Part of the Medicare prescription drug bill that I think is very unfortunate is a statutory ban on Medicare using its bargaining power to hold down the cost of medicine the way big private-sector buyers would use their bargaining power. So Senator Snowe and I would like to change that. We would like to lift that bargaining power restriction so Medicare would be in a position to use marketplace forces to hold down the cost of prescription drugs.

A few weeks ago, we got a big boost for our bipartisan legislation when the outgoing Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary Tommy Thompson, said he wished he had had the power the bipartisan Snowe-Wyden legislation would provide. Secretary Thompson gave a press conference, I believe on the day he announced his resignation, and specifically said he wished he had had the tools that the bipartisan legislation the Senator from Maine and I have authored would provide at the time of his service because he could have made those scarce Medicare dollars stretch further.

So I think Secretary Thompson gave a pretty ringing bipartisan endorsement for the legislation Senator Snowe and I will be reintroducing very shortly. It seems to me to make sure that seniors get the best value in the marketplace, that taxpayers get their money's worth under the Medicare program, a program that is, of course, soaring in costs, we ought to make sure we use the kinds of tools the private sector uses.

In the bipartisan legislation I have written with Senator Snowe--it is called the MEND bill, the Medicare Enhancement for Needed Drugs legislation--we would have a chance, in my view, to significantly rein in these costs using the power of the marketplace. But I bring this up first by way of saying this is just the beginning of what I think we could do in this session of Congress.

I want to move now to the issue of catastrophic illness. The Senator from Missouri and I represent a lot of small businesses. We enjoyed our service on the Small Business Committee when we were in the House. I think we and our colleagues all understand if you have a small business, say a hardware store with six people, and one or two of them get particularly sick, that essentially blows the whole health care system for that small hardware store or furniture shop or what have you. In effect, if one or two of the people get sick at the small business, the premiums go through the roof for everybody, and they essentially can go so high that it is not possible for the firm to offer coverage at all.

I was struck in the campaign by Senator Kerry's proposal because I thought it was a very innovative way to help those small businesses rein in their costs. In effect, he was going to use the concept of reinsurance for very large bills that would be faced by a small business. If you have the Government picking up the very large bills for the one or two people at the hardware store in Missouri who have these illnesses, that can stabilize the rate system for everybody.

I thought the Kerry proposal was a good idea. I come to the floor to bring it up because I think if you compare the Kerry proposal to some of the ideas offered by the distinguished majority leader, Senator Frist, who was just on the floor, his Healthy Mae proposal, while different than the Kerry proposal, certainly in a number of respects both of them are looking at the same core concept, which is to use this idea of reinsurance to pick up the very large bills that would be faced by some of our small businesses.

I think when you look at the Kerry proposal, when you look at the Frist proposal, there is a lot of common ground there to tackle a health care issue of enormous concern to millions of families. All across this country we have citizens who face the prospect of going to bed at night knowing that if the medical bills soar through the roof, they could lose everything. They could lose their home, the capacity to educate their kids. They could lose virtually everything.

So I think it is important we enact a catastrophic illness program. This idea, by the way, has percolated around for decades. Democratic Presidents have talked about it. Republican Presidents have talked about it. Senator Kerry has authored an innovative proposal. Senator Frist has come up with ideas that I happen to think are attractive. What we ought to be doing as a body is looking for common ground and the opportunity to work together. As Senator Snowe and I have done with prescription drug cost containment, I would hope the Senate could come together for a bipartisan catastrophic illness proposal that I think would make a very meaningful dent in these huge expenses we so often face for catastrophic illness.

There are other areas that lend themselves to immediate action as well. In this regard, I particularly commend the distinguished senior Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, and the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, for their outstanding work on mental health. We have been working for some time to try to ensure that there would be mental health parity. Having had my late brother, Jeff, suffer from schizophrenia, I have watched these families jostled around in the health care system for years. I know colleagues of both political parties have as well. There is no reason why we cannot get a bipartisan mental health parity effort, a Domenici-Kennedy bill, working with the other body, get that enacted into law, and get it sent to the President--again, a chance for immediate action.

Finally, I mentioned briefly the issue of childhood obesity. It is obvious that

we now have literally an epidemic of childhood obesity problems occurring early on in life that produce other deadly and costly illnesses such as diabetes and heart disease. Senator Frist and I, working with a group of health advocates for children and independent scientists, have put together a bipartisan bill. I hope we can use that legislation as an opportunity for the Senate to come together.

Our proposal essentially involves a modest Government role, particularly at the outset of the program. Then we use a foundation approach to generate additional funds in the private sector. But at the end of the day, under that legislation, we would have a grassroots juggernaut all across the country focused on our schools, on our families, tackling this issue of childhood obesity. Again, there is no reason why we could not act immediately.

On these kinds of issues--and I have outlined four of them now--I believe Congress is on the cusp of success. Bipartisan efforts are underway. Certainly they need some tweaking and some changes, going through the committee process and the negotiations that are essential to pass legislation, but for all practical purposes, in each of these areas--prescription drug cost containment, a program to deal with catastrophic illness, mental health parity, and fighting childhood obesity--we have legislation that is camera-ready to tackle these very serious health care concerns. We ought to have it.

As the Congress moves on these initiatives, we have to also move to address the health care system of tomorrow. In this regard, Senator Hatch and I have worked for several years on the Health Care That Works for All Americans Act. We got it funded finally last year as part of the appropriations legislation. Now the Government Accountability Office is moving to set in place the first stage of the legislation, which would involve naming the 14 individuals who would be part of the Citizens' Health Care Working Group.

The bipartisan effort Senator Hatch and I have pursued for several years is built on the proposition that it is time for the country and the Congress to try something different and to look at this in a dramatically altered way. This may be of some interest to the Presiding Officer because essentially Harry Truman, in the 81st Congress in 1945, tried on the health care issue what Bill Clinton tried back in 1993 and 1994, and essentially all Presidents have tried in between the 1940s and the 1990s. That was to write legislation in Washington, DC. The American people would find these big Federal health reform bills incomprehensible. The various powerful interest groups would attack each other. And essentially nothing would happen. It was essentially driven in the confines of the beltway in Washington. Literally for more than five decades in the debate about creating a health care system that works for everybody, we would essentially have paralysis.

What Senator Hatch and I have sought to do is to try something different; that is, to essentially start this debate outside the beltway, to try to involve the American people in the most important questions, not the various arcane issues about what every single payroll tax level ought to be, but the big kinds of questions--I will outline a couple of those in a moment--and then use that kind of effort, where citizens could be involved in community meetings, citizens could weigh in online, citizens could participate in a variety of ways, to try to build a consensus for the kinds of reforms that would be needed to create a health care system that works for everyone.

Under our legislation, after the Citizens' Working Group is named by Mr. Walker, the head of the Government Accountability Office, what happens next is the working group essentially would put out for the American people, in simple, straightforward English, information--it could be available online, in booklets, senior centers, other places where folks gather--about where the health care dollar goes today. This year we are going to spend in the vicinity of about $1.8 trillion on health care. That is what we are spending on health care, yet it is clear that as far as the country is concerned, there really is no sense where that $1.8 trillion goes now and what the alternatives are for perhaps spending it in a different fashion.

That would be the first task of the Citizens' Working Group, to put out online, in booklets available throughout our communities, information about where the health care dollar goes today and what the various options are for where it might be targeted as an alternative so Americans would have a chance to say: Look, what I am interested in is this kind of approach. Let's say a health savings account or the Associated Health Plan concept, the health plan concept the Senator from Missouri has advocated.

Other citizens might say: I am interested in a single payer kind of system, perhaps in a small community. They think that is the approach that makes sense for them. The point is, until you tell the American people where the health care dollar is going now, it is hard to have a debate with respect to changes that might be necessary so the Congress, on a bipartisan basis, could in effect move forward with legislation that would create a system that works for everybody.

When Senator Hatch and I began this effort, we made a systematic effort to make it as inclusive as we possibly could. The legislation early on won the support of the Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, and the American Association of Retired Persons--certainly a coalition that doesn't agree all the time on health care or other kinds of issues. We have had many groups endorse the effort since. The reason they have is they believe it is critical that something new be tried.

What happens under our legislation, after the Citizens' Working Group has made it possible for folks to see where the $1.8 trillion we are spending on health care goes now, is that our citizens will have a chance to participate in open community meetings, online, and other kinds of sessions so that they would have a chance to be heard on the second stage of this very different approach with respect to health care reform.

After our citizens have had a chance to be heard, then the Citizens' Working Group in effect takes that kind of sentiment they have heard from all corners of the Nation and tries to synthesize it into a set of recommendations to the Congress. And under our legislation, within 60 days after the Citizens' Working Group has provided the recommendations to the Congress with respect to what the American people have said, each committee of jurisdiction has to begin hearings on what has come from the Citizens' Working Group in terms of the recommendations of the American people.

I want to close by giving a few examples of the kind of areas where I think we have to have the input of the American people where they have never been asked. For example, the issue of end-of-life care is absolutely essential in terms of a new focus for health care reform. We know that many of our health care dollars are spent in the last few months of an individual's life. We are told by many medical experts-- doctors, hospitals, and others--that in many of those instances there is nothing they can do that is medically effective, and there is nothing they can do to enhance the quality of life for the individual. So the question for the country and for courageous political leadership is: What should we do with respect to end-of-life care?

If we are being told by our best doctors and hospitals that they cannot do anything that is medically effective, cannot do anything to promote a better quality of life for individuals, do we want to refocus the health care dollars to make sure, for example, that there are better hospice programs and better end-of-life care programs for individuals facing those kinds of health challenges? I personally think that is where the American people are going to end up. Let's ask them, for the first time, how they want to deal with these very difficult social and ethical issues with respect to American health care. I submit that financial issues with respect to health care are very difficult, no question about that. I think the social and ethical issues, with respect to end-of-life care, where much of the health care dollar gets spent today, are even more challenging, but we have to act. That is the kind of question that would be posed by the Citizens' Working Group. I think other issues are important.

I am particularly interested in the issue of personal responsibility. I think that has been part of what has been driving the debate with respect to health savings accounts and other such

approaches. I have been discussing with my constituents in town hall meetings the idea that if we are to have a system that works for everybody in terms of affordable quality health care, I am prepared to say that an individual should, every time they use a medical service, if they are not destitute, have to make a payment on the spot so as to ensure that there is a clear requirement of personal responsibility. Certainly, that will be controversial, but that is the kind of issue that has to be discussed with respect to health reform.

Finally, I think the question of addressing health care--and particularly Senator Hatch and I have tried to do it in a bipartisan way--means you have to get beyond the blame game. Sometimes when you have a discussion about health care, the topic comes up that Republicans say it is the trial lawyers' fault; nail the trial lawyers and everything is going to be fine. Then you go meet with Democrats and Democrats say, yes, we have to have health reform. Go nail the insurance companies; do that and everything will be fine. I think--and Senator Hatch and I have talked about this--if we are going to have a health care program that works for all Americans, we are going to have to get beyond the blame game. You bet changes need to be made in the insurance sector, because they do skim the cream and take the healthy people, and they do send sick people to Government programs that are sicker than they are. There do need to be changes in those insurance practices. I think we also understand that there are frivolous cases and abuses in the legal sector, and changes would be necessary there if we are to have meaningful reform and a health care program that works for all Americans.

It seems to me this is an issue that we cannot duck because come 2010, 2011, 2012, medical costs will clearly consume just about everything in sight. I submit that the problems we are seeing today in terms of small business premium hikes, folks falling between the cracks--they are not old enough for Medicare or not poor enough for Medicaid; our Medicare providers are understandably frustrated by the reimbursement system--if we keep nibbling at the Medicare health care system, the problems we are seeing today are going to seem like small potatoes compared to what happens in 2010, 2011, and 2012. On New Year's Day in 2008, this demographic influx, in effect, of 7 million- plus retirees we will see over the next few years is going to start to retire. That happens New Year's Day 2008. So the reason I have come to the floor this afternoon is I wanted to outline a number of steps-- four, specifically--that I thought Congress could tackle in a bipartisan way that would make a meaningful difference right now: the legislation Senator Snowe and I have authored in terms of prescription drug cost containment, using marketplace forces to hold down prescription drug costs; catastrophic illness, and looking particularly at ideas that Senators Kerry and Frist have talked about; the question of mental health parity; childhood obesity. Again, we can build where there is a bipartisan foundation for congressional action. These are steps we ought to take now. Then we ought to use the next couple of years--as Senator Hatch and I have tried to do in a bipartisan kind of way--to build a health care system that works for all Americans. Our legislation is moving ahead.

The Government Accountability Office is appointing the Citizens' Health Care Working Group right now. The $3 million appropriated for the legislation--and I am grateful to Senators Specter and Harkin for that particular work--is going to allow us, in our Health Care That Works For All Americans Act, to take a very different approach to break this spiral which dates back to 1945, tried by Harry Truman in the 81st Congress, and continued literally up through the time of President Clinton. Making sure the public has the facts is the first task of the Citizens' Health Care Working Group established in the legislation I have authored with Senator Hatch. Second is to make sure the public gets a chance to weigh in. Finally, to ensure public accountability, the Congress is under a requirement to move forward with hearings after the Citizens' Working Group has reported.

So I think it is appropriate on this first day of the new session to zero in on the health care issue. I have been very closely following the discussions colleagues on both sides of the aisle have made with respect to the tragedy that has taken place overseas. I am very pleased to hear that Majority Leader Frist is leading a trip to the area and will come back with ideas for bipartisan action on that terrible tragedy. I wanted to talk about what I think is the most pressing issue at home, the health care challenge, and particularly to outline bipartisan steps that could be taken now. I also look forward to working with my colleagues as the legislation I have authored with Senator Hatch is implemented in the weeks ahead.

I yield the floor.