Floor Statements

Mr. President, I too wish to pay tribute to the accomplishments of Ms. Bonny O'Neil and thank her for her many years of dedicated service to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Ms. O'Neil has done an outstanding job as the senior career official responsible for the Food Stamp Program. Under her very capable leadership, this important program has been greatly improved.

During the writing of the recent farm bill, which took almost 2 years, Ms. O'Neil worked tirelessly with the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry on the food stamp provisions. Her expertise in this area was invaluable and she was always available to provide assistance. After the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 was signed into law, Ms. O'Neil worked to implement the food stamp provisions, including the large number of State flexibility sections contained in the act.

The quality of her efforts in this regard are obvious. In the one year since the farm bill passed, numerous States have already implemented or are planning to implement important State options that significantly improve the Food Stamp Program. As a result, we are helping working Americans in their efforts to enter and stay in the workforce and also making sure that, for millions of American children, the shadow of hunger does not loom so darkly.

In always remembering that her job is to serve Americans and to better their lives, rather than just to run a program from an office in Washington, Bonny meets and surpasses the highest ideals of civil service.

I thank Ms. O'Neil for her years of service to our Nation and wish her well in her retirement.

Mr. President, to follow the remarks of my colleague from North Dakota, I, too, have an amendment I would like to lay down. It is a very short amendment. It would not require a great deal of debate and discussion. I hope it would have widespread support. It has to do with mammography screening under Medicare, and the fact that we have a dual system now for that screening. They are reimbursed at a certain rate.

For diagnostic mammographies, they are reduced to a lower rate. What we find is when a woman who is Medicare

eligible who gets screened for breast cancer and, under the screening mammography, there are some indications possibly that she might have breast cancer, she now needs to get a diagnostic screening. The waiting time is up to 6 months because the rates are so low for the reimbursement for diagnostic screening of mammographies.

What we have done is put women in this very terrible position. They get screened and there is some indication they might have breast cancer, and yet they then cannot get the diagnostic screening they need.

What my amendment would do, basically, is increase the technical portion of diagnostic mammograms performed in hospital-based facilities by removing this procedure from the ambulatory payment categories and placing it in the Medicare fee schedule. The Medicare fee schedule reimburses at a higher rate than the ambulatory payment categories. The change would result in roughly a 13-percent increase for unilateral diagnostic mammograms and roughly a 39-percent increase for bilateral diagnostic mammograms.

As I have said, under these two repayment categories, screening mammographies are already in the Medicare fee schedule, but the diagnostic mammograms are still in the ambulatory payment category. This amendment would put the diagnostic screening in the same position as the screening.

Medicare officials estimate that more than half of all women who are Medicare beneficiaries receive their breast cancer screenings in a hospital-based facility. Unfortunately, due to the low Medicare reimbursement rates for the diagnostic screening, over 700 hospital- based mammography facilities have closed in the last 2 years simply because the reimbursement rates are so low. As a result, waiting times for hospital-based mammograms covered by Medicare can be several months in many parts of the country. These delays can have significant clinical implications for fighting breast cancer.

Again, what my amendment would do is correct the problem by increasing the reimbursement for the diagnostic mammograms. I point out again why this is necessary. Women receive diagnostic mammograms following the screening mammograms if there is a suspicious finding.

Imagine that you had a screening--put yourself in a woman's shoes-- and they said there is some suspicion there, but because there are no local hospital-based mammography facilities--they have closed down--you may have to wait weeks or months to get your diagnosis definitively confirmed or denied. As these facilities close, there are fewer places for women to get mammograms.

When you consider that approximately 1 million additional women per year become age eligible for these mammogram screenings, it is easy to see we have an access problem. Moreover, because radiologists use and train at these hospital facilities, they find it difficult to sustain their mammography practices, and fewer and fewer of them are being trained.

Again, it is a very simple, straightforward amendment. I would like to ask that the pending amendment be set aside, but I am not going to do that. As the Senator from North Dakota pointed out, the managers are not in the Chamber. It seems to me we are trying to move this process along, and we have amendments we could offer and have a short debate, have a vote or have them accepted. We are standing here not being able to move the process along.

I will be delighted to yield to my colleague from North Dakota.

Mr. President, I think the Senator has laid out exactly the format. We know the crunch is going to come next week because at the end of next week begins the July 4 recess period. They are going to go around asking, Can you drop your amendment; drop your amendment; we have to get out of here.

Here we are ready to go with amendments that I think are meaningful. The Senator from North Dakota has a meaningful amendment. The one on cholesterol screening sounds meaningful. These are important life-and- death issues for a lot of people out there, as mammogram screenings for women are.

These are not amendments that are going to require a long time to debate. As a matter of fact, in the length of time I have stood here, I probably could have offered my amendment, had it debated, and started a vote on it or had it accepted. I hope we will move along.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Will the Chair please advise at least this Senator what is pending at the desk right now? What is the pending business before the Senate right now?

Further parliamentary inquiry: There are three amendments pending, and the one that is now before the Senate is the Enzi amendment.

The Senator assumes then the other two amendments--I am sorry, I forgot what they are--a unanimous consent agreement was entered to set them aside to consider the Enzi amendment.

The pending business is the Enzi amendment. As I said, with comity with respect to the fact the managers are not here, I will not ask unanimous consent to set the Enzi amendment aside to offer my amendment. When they come back, I hope we can do so.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I thank the Senator for yielding. I compliment him on his amendment. I see seniors from our State sometimes trying to get up to Canada and buy drugs, the same drugs you pointed out, and paying one- third as much as in the United States. The Senator pointed out that one of the arguments we often have here for this higher drug price in the United States is so the drug companies can engage in research. And we want them to do that research. They do a lot of good research, as the Senator just stated. They develop new drugs, and sometimes those drugs don't pan out, and they need to cover the expense of bringing new drugs on the market. We are all for that.

But I ask the Senator from North Dakota, is it not a fact that last year the major drug companies in the United States spent more money on advertising to the public than they did on research, that they actually spent more money advertising prescription drugs which you and I can't even buy unless we get a prescription? Yet we see full-page ads in USA Today, three and four-page spreads in Time and Newsweek magazine, full pages in the New York Times.

I ask the Senator, what sense does it make if, in fact, they are going to charge us high prices for drugs in the United States and they are using it just to advertise for drugs we can't even buy unless we get a prescription? Isn't it a fact they actually spent more money on advertising than they did on research?

Will the Senator yield?

The Senator really has made an eloquent case for why we ought to have free trade with Canada in drugs as long as they meet the same requirements. I ask the Senator, do we not in fact have a free trade agreement with Canada?

If the Senator will yield for another question, I thank the Senator for yielding again. The Senator continues to make an excellent point here that seems to be lost on the proponents of this bill on the other side.

I continue hearing how this is a bill that is supposed to promote competition. It is supposed to promote free enterprise and the marketplace. Yet here, as the Senator from North Dakota has pointed out, in one place where the marketplace really could save seniors money, by opening up the marketplace for these drugs to come in from Canada as long as they meet all of our FDA requirements, on this the other side says, no, we don't want the marketplace to work in this case.

It kind of gives lie to all of the arguments about how this bill is to promote competition in the marketplace on drugs for the elderly. Quite frankly, it seems to me this bill is to promote higher prices and to ensure the elderly really do not get the best deal they could possibly get in buying prescription drugs which would mean they would not be able to buy them from Canada, which distorts the marketplace.

Again, I thank the Senator for his well-reasoned arguments and his well-reasoned amendment. With this amendment, we ought to strike a blow for the marketplace and let the marketplace work by allowing our seniors to be able to purchase these drugs under this so-called free trade agreement that we have with Canada.

I compliment the Senator from North Dakota for this amendment.

Madam President, as the cosponsor of the Stabenow amendment, I add my strong support for the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from Michigan.

Senator Stabenow has it right. She understands what is happening. Senator Stabenow has time and time again come to the floor to point out we need to give seniors more choices rather than fewer choices. That is what we are doing with this amendment.

The bill we are considering in the Senate this week, S. 1, has a number of flaws despite its good intentions. Its prescription drug benefit for seniors is far from comprehensive. There is a significant coverage gap. Premiums are not fixed. Many of the copays are too high. The bill does not contain the actual costs of prescription drugs. Although the generics amendment, which I assume will be added to the bill, which will certainly help in that regard, the bill does not go into effect until 2006; interestingly enough, just to get us by the 2004 election.

I have a number of concerns. I plan to speak about all of these as we proceed on this bill this week. One of the most significant flaws in this bill is addressed by this amendment offered by Senator Stabenow; that is, this bill requires seniors obtain the prescription drug benefit through private insurance unless there are not two such private insurance plans in their area. In other words, a prescription drug benefit through Medicare is only available as a so-called fallback.

In other words, if you are a senior in, let us say, a rural State where there are no private HMOs--speaking about my State of Iowa, we don't have one Medicare-based HMO in the State of Iowa. Let us say you are in an area and you have two private plans. You don't have a choice other than those two. That is all you have. You have those two. If you are in a State where there are not two plans, then you can get Medicare. Let us talk about this. It is only a fallback position. If the two plans aren't there, then you can get it through Medicare.

What Senator Stabenow's amendment says is that we want a prescription drug benefit through Medicare that would be available to all seniors at all times so they can have a real choice. Under this amendment, this is how it would change the bill.

You are in an area and you have two private plans. You could also have Medicare. Now you have one of three choices. Under the bill here, you have one of two choices. We are expanding the choices. We are saying you can go with private plan A, private plan B, or Medicare. You have the choice. If private plans are so desirable and they are so good, then let them compete against a Medicare benefit. Let us see which one a senior chooses.

I found the arguments propounded by my friend and colleague from my own State of Iowa Orwellian at best. The chairman of the committee was talking about choices. We want to give seniors choices. If a senior has one of two choices, or one of three choices, which one gives the senior more choices? The chairman of the committee said the first one that offers two plans gives them more choices. That is Orwellian. It is Orwellian-speak that somehow two choices are more than three choices. Go figure.

To me, this is the key issue that needs to be fixed in this bill. I am glad it is the first amendment because it is vital. I think it represents the fundamental difference between many on our side and many on the Republican side on this bill.

I want to be very clear. I am not against a free market. I am not against the private sector or private health insurance plans. But the reality is that the private sector by its very nature leaves certain groups of people behind, especially in the health care area.

Let us be honest about it. People with disabilities are not a profitable group. You have a disability. Try getting insurance. Try it. There is no money to be made there. People with mental illnesses are not a profitable group. We have been trying for some time to get mental health parity. We still don't have it because the private sector understands they can't make money.

Guess what other group is not profitable? Senior citizens are not profitable. They use more health care as they get older. So they are not profitable.

If you look back in history, that is why we established Medicare in the first place in the 1960s--to care for those people who were left behind by the private sector.

I remember as though it were yesterday when my father was in his later years and had health care problems. In the 1950s my father was then in his early seventies. He had been quite disabled from working for over 20 years in coal mines. He had ``miners lung,'' as they called it then. Later they called it ``black lung.'' He had had some accidents. He was now in his late sixties. He was in his early seventies in the 1950s. His health was in bad shape. He was on Social Security. That is all he had. He had no life savings. He had no dividends. He owned no stock. My father only went to the 8th grade. He worked most of his life in the coal mines. After that, he worked as a handyman. All he owned was a small house on 1 acre of land. That is all he had. Thank God he worked enough to pay into Social Security to get a Social Security benefit. But he had no health care insurance. He had no outside sources of income. He had some young kids, me being one of them. We had no outside source of income at all. My father's income in the 1950s on an annual basis was probably around about--I would be surprised if it was over $2,000 or maybe $2,500 a year at the most. He couldn't get health insurance.

There was no one who would sell my father health insurance, even if we could have afforded it. Later on, when a couple of his kids got out of college and we looked around to try to see if we could get some, no one would cover him. He was now in his midseventies and had black lung disease. He had a few other problems. Try to find an insurance program. There were health insurance programs at that time. There were a lot of health insurance programs that covered a lot of workers at that time through their employment but they were not about to cover my father. That would not have been profitable.

I remember when Medicare came in. My father got his Medicare card. Now he could go to the doctor and go to the hospital.

There are those of us who lived through this and saw our parents denied health care coverage because they couldn't afford a private health care plan because the private health care plans left them behind. We look at this bill and say: Wait a minute. You are saying you are going to have these two private plans out there but you are not going to have a Medicare choice?

We experimented with private health care and HMOs. Guess what happened. Seniors all over the country were dumped by plans. They had a plan. They signed up. As soon as the plan saw they weren't making money, they said: We are out of town. So seniors were dumped. We didn't have a law that said you had to cover them. They just walked away from it.

That is what is going to happen with this bill, too. Obviously, they can do it on an annual basis. That is another point of this bill that is going to get highlighted. A plan could be in effect and they find out after a year they are not making enough money. Bang, they walk away. Then maybe another plan will come in. Oh, well. Maybe a senior can sign up for that. What is the coverage, or the copay, or what is the deductible? It may be different.

For years, Republicans have not so subtly wanted to privatize Medicare. There were public comments such as then-Speaker Newt Gingrich who said about Medicare that he wanted to ``let it wither on the vine.''

I think when you read those statements and the statements by the third ranking Republican in the Senate who said that the basic Medicare benefit basically needs to be done away with, you get an insight into the long-term goal of those on that side.

What they state is their support for including the private sector here to take advantage of the efficiency by the experience and the virtues of private competition. All well and good. I am all for competition and efficiency. But what happens is that this bill now before us relies on the participation of private plans to deliver this drug benefit to our seniors. But you have to set the rhetoric aside.

The current structure of this bill before us invests unwisely in private health plans to provide the drug benefit for seniors, and it restricts their choice. It restricts it. As I said, the Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the committee, spoke about giving seniors choices. That is exactly what the Stabenow amendment does. If they do not want to be in Medicare, they can go out and get a private plan. But under the bill before us, if they do not want to be in a private plan and want to stay in Medicare, they cannot do it.

Now, again, for some reason I am having trouble understanding this argument made by the chairman of the committee that somehow having two choices gives you more choices than having three choices. Someone has to really explain this to me because that is what the Stabenow amendment does. It gives you three choices: Medicare, plan A, plan B. The bill before us gives you two choices: plan A or plan B.

Now, again, this is especially bad for seniors in rural States where private plans have shown no interest in participating in the Medicare program. Now, again, the scheme in this bill of having the private plans only--if there was some history to back this up, and the chairman of the committee talked about history. Well, OK, let's look at the history. We know from history the administrative costs in Medicare are much lower than in private health plans--2 to 3 percent a year compared to 15 percent in the private health care plans. We know that. That is fact. That is data.

We also know that over the past 30 years Medicare spending has grown at a slower rate than private health care spending; about 9.6 percent for Medicare, over 11 percent for private health care plans. We know that. It is factual. Yet ignoring this history, in the plan before us, this administration and the Republican leadership in the Senate insist on relying almost solely on private plans to provide this drug benefit to our seniors.

As I said, the bill before us might be reasonable if we had some past history to back up the fact that the private health care plans were the most efficient. They want to talk about efficiency. The facts show that administrative costs are about one-fifth--one-fifth--as much in Medicare as in private plans, 2 to 3 percent compared to 15 percent. So efficiency? Obviously, Medicare is more efficient.

And the cost, well, as I said, over the last 30 years Medicare has grown at a slower rate than private health plan spending. So which costs more, Medicare or private health care plans? Well, we have the facts. We have the data. This cannot be ignored.

The only way you can ignore this data and these facts is if your ideology trumps experience. If you have an ideology that says we are going to set up a system that will ensure that Medicare sometime in the future fails, I guess you could ignore facts, you could ignore the history. And that is really what this is all about, folks.

The result of all this private plan investment means there is less money available to actually help seniors get the drugs they need. It is estimated that the underlying bill will actually pay private insurance companies over $25 billion just to participate. Boy, talk about a sweetheart deal.

OK, let me get it straight now. We want only two private plans out there in a region for seniors. The bill will not let Medicare compete. That is what the Stabenow amendment does for us, it allows Medicare to compete. The bill will not. So you have two private plans out there. Because why? ``They are more efficient. They have more experience,'' et cetera, et cetera. ``They will have competition, and the competition will keep the price down.'' Then why are we giving them $25 billion in subsidies to get them into the program? You would think they would be knocking the doors of the Senate down rushing to get in on this.

Let me proffer a question. What if we took out the subsidies to the private insurance plans? How many would come into this program? Zero. No, we are going to give them $25 billion. What if we took that $25 billion and we put it into a prescription drug benefit? Well, we could cut down what? We could cut down the deductible, maybe. We could cut down the copays. We could close the coverage gap--all of which would help our seniors. No, no, no. We are going to take $25 billion and we are going to help the private insurance companies. We are going to coax them. I have a different word. We are going to bribe them. We are going to bribe them with $25 billion of money to come in here.

Talk about efficiency. Boy, isn't the private sector grand. Isn't competition wonderful when the Government comes in with your taxpayers' dollars and gives them $25 billion so they can offer some kind of a prescription drug plan.

I mentioned just a minute ago about how in the past private plans have come into existence. Seniors join them, and then the plans close down, leaving the seniors holding the bag. That is the history. That is the data. That is what has happened. Because of the structure of this plan, seniors could be forced to switch plans and drugs on a yearly basis--yearly--as private plans may join and then pull out of the markets.

So you have these two plans out there. Your grandparents, your parents, join plan B because it looks good for them, and it turns out maybe the first year it is OK for them, but the plan they joined finds they are not making enough money. Guess what. At the end of the year they walk away.

Now, what do your grandma and grandpa do then? Well, they can go to maybe plan A, or maybe another plan will come in, have a different copay, different deductible, different this, different that. And I will tell you, if you think your health plan today is confusing--and it is. I look at my health care plan every year when the open season comes around and I try to make heads or tails of it. I was trained as a lawyer. I may not be a very good one, but I was trained as a lawyer, and reading these things is confusing, even for someone trained. Put these plans out there for the average senior citizen to read every year of who gives what, what is the benefit--total confusion.

Then what happens? Well, people get confused. They get upset with the program. Seniors talk among themselves at their various groups and clubs, and they find out that Mrs. Jones over here, while she has an income of $14,640 a year--guess what--her deductible and her copays are up here, they are high. Mrs. Smith, her friend and neighbor, who comes to the same club, her income is $14,639--$1 less--and she gets all hers free. Think about that. Think about what this is going to mean to the elderly out there when they see: Wait a minute, my neighbor, my friend, they get a few dollars more a year than I do. They pay. I get a few dollars less. I don't have to pay anything.

What is that going to lead to? Not only to confusion, it is going to lead to anger, and it is going to lead ultimately to seniors saying that this whole system has to be changed. And that is the end result of what the Republicans want to do with this bill; that is, to strike a dagger to the heart of Medicare. Now they can't go after the heart right now, so you cut a few veins. You take a leg here and a leg there and an arm here and an arm there, and pretty soon Medicare is done for.

That is why this amendment by Senator Stabenow is so important. It follows a simple and reasonable philosophy that says seniors who want to stay in traditional Medicare ought to have that choice. We are not forcing them. Senator Stabenow is not forcing any senior to stay in any plan. She is simply providing them the choice.

Again, as the chairman of the committee said earlier, as the President has said, they extoll the virtues of giving seniors more choices. I say yes, let's give them more choices. This amendment does that by doing two things. It gives seniors the option of staying in traditional Medicare for all of their health care needs including prescription drugs. They have that choice. They don't have to if they don't want to. And as Senator Stabenow has shown time and time again, 11 percent of the seniors have said no, they don't want to stay in Medicare. Fine, if they want to go somewhere else, that is their privilege. Her amendment would not change that whatsoever.

But the second thing the Stabenow amendment does is it guarantees our seniors, especially those who live in rural areas where private plans are less likely to participate, a reliable and consistent option that will never leave them without coverage.

Throughout this debate, we have heard and will continue to hear our

friends on the other side, the Republicans, talk about how great private plans are, how they will control costs through competition. I just cited some statistics that show that historically this has not been true. The Stabenow amendment will make sure that every senior in every State has access to a consistent benefit and the option of staying in the Medicare Program.

I would think--maybe I am naive; I hope not--that if the chairman of the committee and the Republicans really wanted to give choices to seniors, they would welcome this amendment. If you listen to our friends on the Republican side and trust them, you will believe the private plans will provide a better benefit at a better price to seniors. If that is the case, what are they afraid of?

If the Republicans truly believe the private plans will provide a better benefit at a better price to seniors, why are they so afraid of letting seniors have Medicare as an option then? Because obviously they would pick the private plan because it would be better than Medicare. So what are they afraid of? Why would they not want this amendment? Because, all rhetoric aside, the Republicans want to constrict choice. They want to force seniors into private health care plans--force them-- and only if there are not two plans available, then you get this fallback into Medicare. If it is good enough as a fallback, why not let it compete upfront?

I may have an amendment on this later in the week, but if these private plans are going to be so good and they are so good at competition and efficiency and so good at keeping prices down, why do we have to give them $25 billion in subsidies? Let them go out there on their own. That is the private market. I don't think they need the subsidies if they are truly going to provide this kind of a benefit. Again, I am not arguing it now. I am saying that may come along later.

The Stabenow amendment provides seniors with three choices. The bill provides them with two choices. So this amendment offers them more choices than the underlying bill does. If what the Republicans want are more choices, this is it. They should support the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I offer an amendment with Senators Inhofe and Grassley that simply requires that an airport on the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, (NPIAS), cannot be closed down without giving the FAA 30 days' notice.

That list includes over 3,000 airports including all commercial airports and many of the airports only used by general aviation, that is nonscheduled private aircraft so important to the efficient operation of businesses across our nation.

Chicago's Meigs Field was included in this integrated system of airports until it was dug up in the middle of the night with no notice on March 30, leaving a number of airplanes trapped at the unusable facility. The city government made a unilateral decision to shut down the airport by bulldozing the landing strips, runaway, and taxiways. That action by the city was dangerous and at least one aircraft carrying State employees had to be turned away from the airport since notification that the airport was now closed had not been provided in advance.

I do not dispute that it is within the purview of a local government or other operator evaluate the infrastructure needs of an area and move to close an airport. But, I do believe that they need to give reasonable notice of that intention. I would also note that almost every airport on the NPIAS system has received FAA funding for facilities and equipment.

This provision is not retroactive and would not affect the city of Chicago for the closure of Meigs Field.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I am proud to introduce, along with Senator Lugar, the Puerto Rico Karst Conservation Act of 2003.

This very important bill will provide protection for Puerto Rico's karst region by helping to maintain biodiversity within the tropical forest ecosystem and to protect its valuable aquifers and watersheds. The area is threatened by development which, if unabated, could cause permanent damage to its outstanding natural and environmental assets.

Karst is permeable and soluble limestone that originated millions of years ago. The land identified in the bill contains the last remnants of tropical forests that once covered the island. This area, including the habitats of many endangered and threatened species and tropical birds, is home to over 1,300 species of plants and animals.

The area also provides drinking water through subterranean aquifers to many of the island's citizens. Sixty-four percent of Puerto Rico's aquifer area is contained within the northern karst belt. This aquifer area discharges approximately 120 million gallons of water per day, of which the citizens of Puerto Rico consume 52 million gallons per day. The pharmaceutical industry is one of the mainstays of Puerto Rico's economy and it is dependent on the area's fresh water supplies as well.

An August 2001 U.S. Forest Service report, Puerto Rican Karst: A Vital Resource, documents the ecologically unique and scientifically valuable karst region, stating ``the northern limestone contains Puerto Rico's most extensive freshwater aquifer, largest continuous expanse of mature forest, and largest coastal wetlands, estuary,and underground cave system. The karst belt is extremely diverse, and its multiple land forms, concentrated in such a small area, make it unique in the world.'' It should come as no surprise, then, that Forest Service Chief dale Bosworth has expressed his strong support for the protection of the karst.

The Puerto Rico Karst Conservation Act of 2003 authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out land acquisition by using funds from a Conservation Fund created by the Act, and from the Forest Legacy Program, the Land and Water Conservation Fund and other sources. The legislation also authorizes the Secretary to make grants to and enter into agreements with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, other federal agencies, organizations, and corporations for the acquisition, protection, and management of land in the region. In addition, the bill makes this region eligible for inclusion under the Forest Legacy Program.

I want to thank Senator Lugar for co-sponsoring the Puerto Rico Karst Conservation Act of 2003. His strong support for this legislation and his steadfast commitment to tropical forest conservation is invaluable. It is also important to note that Representative Acevedo-Vila and Representative Duncan have just introduced this measure in the House of Representatives where, I'm told, it has strong bi-partisan support.

I am proud to introduce this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I join Senator Feinstein as a cosponsor of her amendment to strengthen Federal oversight of energy markets. I strongly support the amendment's provisions enhancing the ability of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to investigate and punish fraud and manipulation in over-the-counter markets in energy derivatives and derivatives based on other ``exempt commodities'' under the Commodity Exchange Act.

As chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry during the last Congress, I held a hearing on the scope of the CFTC's authority to insure market transparency and prevent fraud and manipulation in markets in OTC derivatives based on ``exempt commodities,'' such as energy and metals, following passage of the CFMA. Following that hearing, Senator Lugar and I worked closely with Senator Feinstein on an earlier version of this amendment to improve it. At the beginning of the 108th Congress, Senator Feinstein introduced S. 509, incorporating the work we did within the Agriculture Committee last summer and fall. The only difference between S. 509 and this amendment is that S. 509 was drafted to fill a gap in oversight created by the CFMA and fully and clearly affirm the CFTC's authority to oversee trading in all ``exempt commodities''--OTC energy and metals derivatives as well as derivatives based on other commodities such as broadband and weather--whereas this amendment now does not change the treatment of metals derivatives. I have some concerns about this approach. Metals, like energy, are commodities of finite supply. They are equally susceptible to market manipulation and should therefore be subject to the same level of oversight. The legislative process often requires compromise in order to make progress toward important policy goals, however, and because I hope this amendment will result in significant progress in addressing a problem created by the CFMA, I support it.

The CFMA amended the Commodity Exchange Act in a number of positive ways, based for the most part on the recommendations of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets issued in 1999. The President's Working Group recommended that certain transactions involving financial derivatives be excluded from the CFTC's jurisdiction. The President's Working Group did not recommend a similar exclusion for transactions involving energy and metals derivatives, or other commodities of finite supply.

During 1999 and 2000, as legislation was being developed in the Senate, there was discussion of the issue of oversight of energy and metals derivatives markets, and Senator Lugar who was at the time chairman, and I both supported, in the committee, a version of the legislation that was consistent with the recommendations of the President's Working Group, and excluded only financial derivatives--not energy and metals derivatives--from the CFTC's jurisdiction. The bill codified an exemption, with specific safeguards, for certain commodities such as energy and metals, but clearly retained the CFTC's authority to investigate and act against fraud and manipulation.

The final version of the CFMA included in the omnibus appropriations bill in December 2000 differed from our committee bill regarding energy and metals derivatives markets. I supported the CFMA, although I had some concerns about its treatment of energy and metals products, because I thought it had a number of very positive features, and on the whole was a good bill. I still believe so. It is important that we not undermine the legal certainty that legislation brought to the OTC derivatives markets. I would not support this amendment if I thought it would do that. But I do believe it is important to close the loophole that has resulted in an important segment of the overall OTC derivatives market--that is, derivatives based on energy and other ``exempt commodities,'' as the CFMA defined them--being completely excluded from oversight. At the time of passage of the CFMA, many Members of Congress believed these exempt commodities would no longer be subject to most requirements of the Commodity Exchange Act, but they certainly did not believe these commodities would be removed entirely from oversight by the CFTC or any other agency, which is what has happened.

We know now that this lack of oversight has resulted in harm to consumers. Last August, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, issued a report finding significant evidence that Enron used its unregulated OTC electronic trading platform, Enron Online, to manipulate natural gas prices to increase its revenue. This manipulation affected prices not only for Enron's trading partners but industry-wide, as reporting firms used price information displayed electronically on Enron Online as a significant source of natural gas pricing data. And a recent report prepared by the Minority Staff of the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, after a year-long investigation on crude oil price volatility, found that crude oil prices are similarly affected by trading on unregulated OTC markets, and that the lack of information on prices and large positions in OTC markets makes it difficult if not impossible to detect price manipulation. This report concluded that routine market disclosure and oversight of the OTC energy derivatives markets are essential to halt manipulation before economic damage is inflicted upon the market and the public.

This amendment will provide the CFTC with the authority it needs to require routine market disclosure and ensure effective oversight of the OTC energy derivatives markets and markets for other ``exempt commodities,'' such as broadband and weather derivatives. The amendment clarifies that the CFTC has anti-fraud and anti-manipulation authority over transactions in ``exempt commodities'' other than metals. This amendment is not regulatory overreaching by any means. It just gives the CFTC the authority it needs to establish adequate notice, transparency, reporting, record-keeping, and other transparency requirements which are the minimum needed to allow the agency to effectively police OTC markets in energy derivatives, and thereby detect and deter fraud and manipulation of these markets. It also increases criminal and civil penalties for manipulation, including ``wash'' or ``round trip'' trades.

It is clear that the impact of OTC energy derivatives markets reaches well beyond the immediate parties to the transactions. Derivatives play an increasingly important role in the diverse range of energy markets, which are in turn critical to our overall economy. We must ensure the integrity of these markets and restore shareholder, investor, and consumer confidence in them. This amendment moves us in that direction, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam President, this amendment basically closes a small loophole that was left in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act passed in the year 2000. We saw what happened with Enron. And what happened is, Enron Online was used to influence energy prices far beyond Enron. This impacted

consumers not only on the West Coast but in my State and all over the United States.

As a result, we looked at this amendment last year. Both Senator Lugar and I looked at it. We had a hearing on it last year in the Agriculture Committee.

This amendment, I believe, does exactly what we want it to do; that is, to make sure the Commodity Futures Trading Commission----

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds to complete my sentence.

I just wanted to say, this gives the CFTC the authority again to provide the oversight they need to make sure we have integrity in these markets for derivatives based on energy, but also for derivatives based on other things, too, such as weather and broadband. It is a step in the right direction to provide that oversight and transparency.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, will the Chair please state the unanimous consent now before us.

Mr. President, first, briefly, the Dorgan amendment to put 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles on the road by 2010 and 2.5 million by 2020, with the requisite fueling infrastructure, is one that is going to help grow our economy, make our economy stronger. The amendment by Senator Landrieu and others to cut down on the use of oil by a million barrels a day also is going to help improve our economy by making us focus on things such as ethanol, for example, alternative fuels, renewable energy and, of course, along with the Dorgan amendment, fuel cell vehicles. It all has to do with making us more energy independent, and that has to do with growing our economy. The more we continue to send our hard-earned dollars out of the country for the energy we need, the less dollars we are going to have to rebuild our economy here at home.

Yesterday, I attended a hearing Senator Dorgan had that was devoted to the question of our economy. The question was: Will the Bush economic plan create jobs?

Well, I think throughout the hearing what became clear was that the Bush economic plan will not create jobs, unfortunately. The plan advocated by the majority rewards their friends and supporters with large tax cuts but will do very little to create jobs. Many respected economists warned of this months ago, but Republicans and the administration paid them no heed.

Unfortunately, it is not only experts who believe this prediction; history gives the same warning. These trickle-down economic policies have been tried before, and they have failed before. In 1981, Congress passed massive tax cuts for the rich, just like we did here. Then Director of OMB David Stockman called it a ``riverboat gamble.''

Well, it was a gamble. Within 2 years, following the 1981 supply side, trickle-down tax bill, we lost 1.4 million jobs. In 2001, the Bush administration tried it again. They passed the first round of massive tax cuts. And guess what. We lost 2 million jobs. As all major newspapers reported this weekend, the national unemployment rate is now at 6.1 percent, its highest level in 9 years.

Despite these two previous losing gambles, the President and the majority party in Congress decided to give it a third try last month. I think we ought to call the tax bill that was passed and sent to the President the ``Bill Bennett betting bill'' because it is going to have the same effect on our country that Bill Bennett's gambling addiction had on him. It cost him, as I understand it, lost millions. It is going to cost our economy lost billions.

But in the midst of it all, the wealthiest Americans will have massive tax breaks. In fact, on average, those Americans making over $1 million a year are going to receive a tax cut of $93,000 a year. They are going to have a great time. Unfortunately, who is going to pay the bill? Well, it will be paid by the rest of us, especially the younger generation--those now going through college, going out to make their way in life. They will be saddled with a huge, new debt.

As pointed out on the editorial pages of the Des Moines Register this weekend, these irresponsible policies will create pressure for higher State and local taxes, tuition hikes at State colleges and universities, rising health care costs to those lucky enough to have insurance, and further cuts to important initiatives.

The wealthiest in America got more than their share under this tax bill, but the folks in the middle class pay the bills. By contrast, the United States took a fiscally responsible approach in the 1990s. In 1993, Congress passed a budget to grow the economy, create jobs. In the 2 years following that passage, 6.4 million jobs were created. That plan put us on a path not only toward the lowest levels of unemployment in memory, but also to balanced budgets, the largest projected budget surpluses ever.

I find it most remarkable and disheartening that at the very time when it is obvious that economic policies should seek to stimulate demand, stimulate new jobs, the majority party opposes those things that would stimulate the economy the most, such as increasing the child credit for working families making under $26,000 a year.

Well, the Democratic priority may yet prevail, as it did in the Senate last week. I hope it does. But further stimulus, such as putting people directly to work, building new schools, roads, and bridges, communications systems, upgrading our water and our waste water systems, making sure we weatherize homes all over America, will also save us on imported fuel. These are the things we can do now that will put people to work now. But the majority party says no.

I also fear that their policies will lead to exploding Government debt. On the same day we passed this ``Bill Bennett betting bill''-- that is what I call the tax bill--the debt limit was increased by an amount equivalent to putting an additional $3,500 on the credit card of every man, woman, and child in America--$3,500 on the credit card of every man, woman, and child in America--to pay for this ``Bill Bennett betting bill.''

Most of us are aware that the real cost to the Treasury of this recent tax cut will be higher than advertised because the bill used gimmicks and tricks to stay within some nominal budget limit. The Speaker of the House was quoted as saying the real cost will be a trillion dollars, at a time when our exploding deficit is approaching $500 billion for this year alone. Well, with typical British clarity, the Financial Times wrote on May 23, the day the tax bill passed: On the management of fiscal policy, the lunatics are now in charge of the asylum.

The result, as this administration is well aware, is that it will put pressure on Social Security and Medicare. These programs are targeted by the administration for reforms, which means privatizing Medicare and Social Security. We are going to have a debate here, I assume, in the Senate in the coming weeks on how we are going to provide prescription drug benefits under Medicare. But as I see the Medicare bill progressing and developing, it is nothing more than a shell, a subterfuge to move toward the privatization of Medicare, which, of course, has been the Republican Party's dream for many years. Don't take my word for it. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said Medicare ought to wither on the vine. The third ranking Republican in the Senate, my friend from Pennsylvania, said the Medicare benefit should be phased out.

So make no mistake, when we are debating the Medicare bill coming up, we have to get out of the weeds. What they are really talking about is taking the first step toward privatizing Medicare. The President's own press secretary was quoted in the story:

There is no question that Social Security and Medicare are

going to present future generations with a crushing debt

burden unless policymakers work seriously to reform those

programs.

You pass a tax cut for the richest in the country that the Speaker says is going to cost us a trillion dollars, and then you say we are going to have a lot of pressure on Social Security and Medicare because the money will not be there for them, so now we have to reform them, which is their way of saying privatize them. I hope we now understand the picture: A tax cut for the wealthiest, huge debts for the rest, immense pressure on Social Security and Medicare; therefore, you have to privatize them; turn them over to Wall Street. That is where we are heading.

Exploding deficits and the debt will act like a cap on our economy. It will increase interest rates when the economy does begin to recover. It will undermine confidence. We need to create jobs in the short term, but we need to do it in a way that is fiscally responsible, to take care and protect the retirement security and health needs of seniors. We need to change course. The course set by this administration will only lead to further deficits, further debts piling up on our kids and grandkids, economic stagnation, importing more oil from abroad--which is why I am such a strong supporter of the Landrieu amendment and the Dorgan amendment.

I am afraid the administration may be opposed to these amendments, just as they are opposed to a sound rational means of getting our economy moving again. As I said, the Federal Government can be a great instrument, doing it in a fiscally responsible manner that actually provides the basis for further private sector growth in our country.

I was listening to former Congressman Jack Kemp, an old friend of mine of long standing, go on and on about how we need to make sure we have more money in the private sector for investments. I understand that, and that is a legitimate argument, but what about the need for societal investments? What about the need for investing in human capital? What about the need for investing in education? You can give all the tax breaks you want to the richest in this country and the corporations. Are they going to turn around and invest in higher teacher pay, better teacher training? Are they going to invest in rebuilding and modernizing schools all over America? There is no return on that capital, at least not in the short term and not in a way that would accrue to the bottom line of a company.

As we all know, that kind of an investment accrues to our national economy. Rebuilding our schools all over America--this is something that is estimated to be in the neighborhood of $180 billion. Think of the jobs it would create. When you give someone an extra dollar for consumption right now in our society, they may buy a new shirt, but that shirt may be made in Malaysia, Thailand, or India. They may buy a new TV set, but that TV set sure is not made in America, or a stereo not made in America. They may buy a new car. Maybe that car is not made in America. To be sure, some of that money does fall out in this country because we have people selling those items, storing them, and shipping them. But the bulk of it could go outside the country.

If, however, you make a societal investment in building a new school, all of the workers are in America. Almost all of the materials used from the lighting to the heating to the wallboard to the sheetrock-- everything, building materials--almost all, I would not say all--almost all are made in America. Not only do you put people to work, you build something of a lasting nature that provides for a strong foundation for the private sector in America.

Take the issue of weatherization. We could save huge amounts of oil and natural gas each year simply by weatherizing homes, and I do not mean just in the North where it gets cold, but I mean in the South where it gets hot in the summertime. Guess what, these are not jobs that take a lot of training. These are jobs we could fill with unemployed people right now. We can put them to work weatherizing homes all over America.

What do we get? We get immediate job creation. We use materials basically that are made in this country. And we get something out of it that is going to help us: more fuel-efficient homes of low-income people who will not be using their money to pay high heating bills or cooling bills to pay for imported oil.

Yet, for some strange reason, we cannot seem to do that here. But, boy, we can sure give billions in tax breaks to the wealthiest in our society.

I will have more to say about this in the weeks ahead. There is another pathway--that is my point--there is another pathway to economic growth and jobs in our country, to which this administration has turned a blind eye, by investing in the veins and arteries--the roads and bridges, the highways, the sewer and water systems, the schools, the education, the scientific research, the mathematical research, the physics research, the chemistry research, the medical research--that will set the stage for future economic growth and prosperity in our country.

That will not come about by giving more tax breaks to the wealthy or business tax breaks. It comes about by us in the Congress of the United States fulfilling our responsibility to pass tax bills and energy bills that are responsible, that are commonsense, and that will lay this kind of secure foundation for the future. That is why I support the Landrieu amendment so strongly, because it will start to do that, and so will the Dorgan amendment that has been set aside. These are commonsense approaches. These are the programs we should be doing for our economy.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to submit a concurrent resolution on behalf of myself, Senator Chafee and Senator Kennedy. This resolution deals with an issue that I have been working on for many years in a bipartisan manner. It simply calls on the United States to take a leading role in the drafting of an international convention on the human rights of individuals with disabilities. Such a treaty could improve the lives of over 600 million individuals with disabilities throughout the world.

For the past twenty years, the United States has put politics aside and has taken a lead role in the world toward the understanding that disability rights are human rights. I chaired the Senate's Subcommittee on the Handicapped at the time that the Americans With Disabilities Act was being considered by Congress and was a leading author of the ADA. During hearings, I heard over and over again stories of people with disabilities suffering from discrimination--not getting a job because of a disability; being locked up in a nursing home or institution because of a disability; not being able to get into schools, restaurants, stores, banks and other places of business because of a disability. This kind of discrimination is wrong. It is wrong in the United States and it is wrong throughout the world.

In 1990, then President Bush signed the ADA into law. He said, ``This historic Act is the world's first comprehensive declaration of equality for people with disabilities. Its passage has made the United States the international leader on this human rights issue.'' The United States did lead the way in 1990, and it has another historic opportunity to lead the way today.

The issue of disability rights is very personal to me. As many of my colleagues know, my brother Frank was deaf. Because of his disability, he was sent to a school for the ``deaf and dumb'' across the State. Frank said to me, ``I may be deaf but I am not dumb.'' I think of how many children, like Frank, in the world are suffering the effects of this sort of discrimination. How many children are not going to school because they are deaf, or use a wheelchair, or are blind? How many adults with these same disabilities are not working, not earning a living, not participating in civil society?

In recent months, we have all witnessed the situation people with disabilities face in Iraq and in Afghanistan. We have seen footage of the results of the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. We have seen many individuals who have life-long disabilities as a result of his cruelty. Many more are victims of terrorism and cruelty who now suffer the added injury of discrimination.

America has an historic opportunity to help change the lives of these children and adults from around the world and open the doors of opportunity to them. It is time for the world community to come together and write an important new chapter and break down the barriers that prevent people with disabilities from participating in their communities and play an active role in civil society. It is time to say to all of the world that disability rights are human rights, not just in the United States, but everywhere in the world. I strongly urge the Bush Administration to take a lead and work with other member Nations in the drafting of this resolution. Under the auspices of the United Nations, member states are scheduled to meet next week in New York to consider proposals for a comprehensive treaty to protect and promote the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities. I cannot think of a more worthwhile role the Administration could play than to be a leader on this issue and to fully support a convention on the rights of individuals with disabilities.

America's leadership in this process will help create a treaty that is both well intentioned and relevant, one that may fulfill its potential and vastly improve the perceptions, treatment and conditions of people with disabilities throughout the world. The United States must continue to lead the way in this important international effort.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes in morning business.

Madam President, last Thursday the New York Times of May 29 had a front-page picture, a big, color picture on the front page, of the President signing the tax cut bill in the East Room of the White House. As I looked at this picture, I thought: This really is appropriate. Pictures say a thousand words. Here is a picture of the President signing the tax bill, and he is in the East Room, with all the big crystal chandeliers, all the trappings of power, and an audience.

I was looking at this audience. I thought: Who are these people? I am looking at them all. Do you know what? This looks like the rich and the powerful of America sitting there with all these chandeliers and getting all these big tax cuts. There is not one person of color sitting in that audience, not one. Now, there may be. I cannot see back behind where the picture was taken. Maybe there was one. Maybe one of the ushers back there was an African American. But it just kind of leaps out at you that these are the people who really benefit from that tax cut.

Why didn't the President take that tax cut signing down to middle America someplace? Why didn't he take it down to a small community of middle-income taxpayers? Why didn't he take it to a low-income area, say--well, I don't care, pick a city: Newark, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Des Moines, IA, Houston, TX; maybe Detroit, MI or Flint, MI--and go to an area of that city that is low-income where people go to work every day, where they are struggling to make ends meet, where they have to find some child care for their kids so they can go to work to put bread on the table to maybe have a little bit of a decent lifestyle, and they are having trouble finding decent child care and other costs of raising children? Why didn't the President go down there and sign that tax cut bill?

Well, because the sentence right under the picture says why he did not do that:

Tax law omits $400 child credit for millions.

Look at the picture: All the trappings of power, all the rich and powerful of America sitting in that audience. Right below it: ``Tax law omits $400 child credit for millions.'' One picture says a thousand words. And right underneath, it tells you why the President signed the bill in front of all these people and not out in middle America.

So now we are just beginning to find out. We are just beginning to find out, as the New York Times said, that:

Because of the formula for calculating the child care tax

credit, most families with incomes from $10,500 to $26,625

will not benefit.

Zero, nada, nothing.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal

group, says those families include 11.9 million children or

one of every six children under 17.

Madam President, 11.9 million children left out of the tax bill.

You don't see them sitting in the audience. You don't see single moms, for example, sitting in this audience when they are signing the tax bill, balancing a couple kids on their knees. You don't see that.

``I don't know why they would cut that out of the bill,''

said Senator Blanche Lincoln, the Arkansas Democrat who

persuaded the full Senate to send the credit to many more low

income families before the provision was dropped in

conference. ``These are the people who need it the most and

who will spend it the most. These are the people who buy the

blue jeans and the detergent . . .''

As I said, the New York Times picture and the story underneath it say it all.

The Des Moines Register, closer to my home, had an editorial from May 31: ``A Tax-Cutting Disgrace.'' This is from the Des Moines Register editorial:

Congress looked out for investors in the last-minute

revision of the tax bill President Bush just signed into law.

As a result, millions of low-income families won't get the

extra $400-a-kid check from Uncle Sam this summer.

But most families earning $10,500 to $26,625 annually will

be left out. Giving them the credit would have cost about

$3.5 billion and would have required sending checks to some

who don't pay enough income taxes to deliver the credit as a

refund.

People of low income work hard. They go to work every day. They may make just above the minimum wage, but they are not paying income taxes. But they have child care needs, and they are left out.

House Republicans contend that a $350 billion cap on the

tax cut package didn't leave enough room to give the child

credit to low-income families.

To quote the Des Moines Register: ``Nonsense.''

They easily could have done less for the richest Americans

and more for Americans who barely scrape by. And it's

unconscionable that they didn't.

Well, just look at that picture in the New York Times, look who is there. Then read the articles in the paper, read the Des Moines Register editorial, and you will find out what this tax bill was all about.

Now we find something else out about this tax bill as we open up the newspaper this morning, the Washington Post from today: ``Middle Class Tax Share Set To Rise.'' Well, well, well. ``Studies say the burden of the rich to decline.''

Here is what the Washington Post said this morning:

Three successive tax cuts pushed by President Bush will

leave middle income taxpayers paying a greater share of all

Federal taxes by the end of the decade, according to new

analyses of the Bush administration's tax policy. As critics

of the tax cuts in 2001, 2002 and 2003 have noted, the very

wealthiest Americans, those earning $337,000 a year or more

per year, will be the greatest beneficiaries of the changes

in the nation's tax laws.

So what will happen? They go on to point out, the middle class will pay more and more. As the rich pay less and less, the middle class will pay more and more of their share of taxes. Thus, ``Middle Class Tax Share Set To Rise.''

That brings us to what is going on right now with Medicare. Again, one may wonder what the connection is between the tax cut bill and the problems that we are confronting ahead in Social Security and Medicare. Don't take my word for it. Just read the Financial Times, not a Democratic newspaper or anything like that. The Financial Times of Friday May 30, front-page story: ``Bush Aware of `Crushing' Deficit Threat.'' This is the article. I have it blown up here in the chart, ``Bush Aware Of `Crushing' Deficit Threat.''

Ari Fleischer, White House spokesperson told a press briefing.

Listen to this quote:

``There is no question that Social Security and Medicare

are going to present [future]

generations with a crushing debt burden unless policymakers

work seriously to reform those programs.''

Now it becomes clear. Huge tax breaks and cuts for the wealthy. The middle class tax share is to rise. Low-income families who have child care credit needs are written out. Because of the huge gap that is going to happen in the next 10 years because of the lack of revenues for the Federal Government, we are going to have problems in Social Security and Medicare. And so what does Mr. Fleischer say? We are not going to rescind the tax cuts. We are not going to ask the wealthiest to pay a greater burden. No, we are going to reform Social Security and Medicare.

What does he mean by ``reform''? That is just a fancy, two-syllable word for a one-syllable word, ``cuts.'' Reform to Mr. Fleischer, the Bush White House, and the Republicans means cuts--cut Social Security, cut Medicare. Again, don't take my word for it. On May 21, the third ranking Republican in the Senate, my friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, said:

I believe the standard benefit, the traditional Medicare

program, has to be phased out.

Senator Robert Bennett, on March 19, the Senator from Utah said:

Medicare is a disaster. . . . We have to understand that

Medicare is going to have to be overhauled. . . . Let's

create a whole new system.

And then to kind of wrap it all up, yesterday at a hearing here on the Hill, before the Senate Special Committee on Aging, who did they have as a lead-off witness? Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who, in 1995, said Medicare should wither on the vine.

Well, it looks as if the withering is taking place, the huge tax cuts, quotes by my fellow Senators from the other side of the aisle. They want to get rid of Medicare. They want to phase it out. They want to take all the elderly and put them in private HMOs. There isn't one Medicare HMO in the entire State of Iowa. So it is an anti-rural, anti- small-State approach, but you see the pattern. Wither on the vine, huge tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, no child credit to help those with low income, and as the Post pointed out this morning, a greater share of the taxes to the Government are going to be borne by the middle class. What are more middle-class programs than Medicare and Social Security? Those are the middle-class programs. Those are the programs we have had for years to make sure that people who work hard and play by the rules, who raise their families, when they reach retirement age can retire with dignity and decent health care coverage.

Now we see the game plan of the Republicans and of this President: Cut Social Security. Cut Medicare. That is what their reform means.

Now they are going to use the argument that we will not have enough money to pay for the Medicare benefits, to pay for a decent prescription drug benefit, and to keep Social Security benefits going. We don't have enough money. Why? It all went to the wealthy. As I pointed out on the Senate floor during the tax cut debate, the projected shortfall in Social Security over the next 75 years would be more than made up by the shortfall in revenue of the tax cut bills, if they are extended as the President desires.

So you have to ask yourself, what is more important to the middle class in America? Is it making sure that Warren Buffett, the third richest man in the world, gets a $310 million tax break, which he himself said was wrong and that he should not be getting? He said the tax cut ought to go to the middle class, and I commend him for his honesty and forthrightness. What is more important? Is it giving him a $310 million tax break or is it more important to the middle class, to make sure we have a decent prescription drug benefit, to make sure we have a decent Medicare Program and a sound Social Security program? That is what is important to the middle class. That is what has been taken away by the tax cut bill. That is what the Republicans are trying to take away with cuts to Medicare, and that is what they are going to try to continue to take away with further cuts to Social Security. That is why we have to be out here to fight every day for the middle class in America.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator from Michigan yield for a question?

First, I preface my question by thanking the Senator from Michigan for her depth of understanding of the whole Medicare issue and also for her clarity of argument. I should say her clarity of exposition, for exposing what this is all about. It is not about tinkering around with it; it is really about an assault on the Medicare system itself. So I thank the Senator from Michigan for pointing that out, and I hope the Senator will continue to do this so that the American people understand what this is really about. It is about a fight for Medicare, whether we are going to have it.

Now, my question is this: As the Senator pointed out, Mr. Scully and others, back when Medicare+Choice came in, were lauding it, saying we were going to see seniors pouring into managed care Medicare. The Senator talked about how Mr. Scully said this was going to be an Oklahoma land rush to move to private health plans, and the Republicans who put up Medicare+Choice had all of these visions that seniors would go into it. But as the Senator from Michigan pointed out, that did not happen, did it? It did not happen.

Now we only have 11 percent of seniors who chose that. I ask the Senator from Michigan, does it somehow appear that since voluntarily the Republicans could not get seniors into HMOs and private health care plans, there now seems to be an approach that we are going to force them into HMOs by doing away with the Medicare system and restructuring it into a private HMO type system that would force the elderly to do what the elderly do not want to do? Does that seem to be the kind of thing we see laid out in front of us?

Again, I thank the Senator for pointing this out. As the Senator knows, the majority of Republicans voted against Medicare when it came in, in 1965. Even my good friend Senator Dole, when he was running for President, said he voted against Medicare and he was proud of it.

Now I would give them that that is their philosophy, and that is where they are coming from. I understand that. I understand when Newt Gingrich says he wants to have Medicare wither on the vine. I understand when the third ranking Republican in the Senate says the Medicare benefit ought to be done away with. That is their philosophy and that is where they are headed.

So again, I thank the Senator for pointing out that this is really the goal.

This is the goal that is out there, to destroy the Medicare system.

Again, I ask the Senator from Michigan, when Medicare came in, was it not because the private sector had failed in terms of elderly health care in America?

Was that not the history? And if one has these private plans, that they are going to pick and choose, and they are going to cherry pick, and they are going to have a segregation of elderly pushed off in some corner someplace, begging for some kind of health care if we do not have a universal Medicare system? Is that not what might happen?

I thank the Senator for her leadership on this issue.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in support of the renewable fuels standard amendment to S. 14, the Energy bill on the floor.

I paid close attention to the comments made by the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. I don't know whether I should make the remarks I have prepared or try to refute the things he said point by point. Maybe I will do a little bit of both and blend them up a little.

There was one statement made by the Senator from New Hampshire that I did want to point to at the beginning that I think is somewhat erroneous. The Senator from New Hampshire said there is going to be this money sucked out of the highway trust fund because of the use of ethanol. As everyone knows, there is a Finance Committee amendment that is going to be added to this measure or the Highway bill by both Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus. It has broad bipartisan support. That amendment will address this issue. It was reported out of the Finance Committee. As I said, it has broad-based support I believe on both sides of the aisle. This proposal would reshape the ethanol excise tax exemption. Ethanol blended fuels will make a similar contribution to the highway trust fund as regular gasoline.

The proposal by the Finance Committee will actually add $2 billion to the highway trust fund annually.

Yes, I would be delighted to yield for a question.

I am not certain I understand the import of the question.

No. What I am suggesting is that in the past, as we know, a portion of the money was not added to the highway trust fund, it was added to the general fund. And there was a partial exclusion from tax on each gallon of gasohol sold. In effect we are making the highway trust fund whole in the expected Finance Committee amendment.

I say to my friend from New Hampshire, what we are doing is not taking money from the general fund. What we are doing is taking the money from the ethanol part of that which went to the general fund and putting it where it should have been in the first place; and that is, the highway trust fund. That is all we are doing. We are not taking money out of the general fund that comes from general income taxes and every other kind of excise taxes that are paid in this country. We are only talking about ethanol. It will add about $2 billion to the highway trust fund annually.

The other point the Senator from New Hampshire made, which I wish to respond to, is on the issue of whether or not this is a great burden on the States.

In California, nearly all of the refiners have voluntarily switched from MTBE to ethanol in advance of the State's MTBE phaseout deadline of January 1 of next year. Today, approximately 65 percent of all California gasoline is blended with ethanol. It is estimated that 80 percent of fuel in California will contain ethanol by this summer.

I am told that last month the California Energy Commission stated that the transition to ethanol, which began in January of 2003, is ``progressing without any major problems.'' There have been no ethanol shortages, transportation delays, or logistical problems associated with the increased use of ethanol in California. Thus, any efforts to carve out California, per the Feinstein amendment or amendments, from the renewable fuels standard, are unjustified and unnecessary.

Most ethanol sold in California is under a fixed price contract at about 63 cents per gallon, after the tax incentives are applied. Wholesale gasoline in California--that is what ethanol is blended with--is selling for $1.04 a gallon on average. So ethanol is cheaper per gallon in California than is regular gasoline. So how can this be a burden at all on California?

This renewable fuels standard, as has been said by so many before me, will increase the use of ethanol and other renewable fuels--including biodiesel; not just ethanol, but biodiesel--in the Nation's fuel supply from 2.6 billion gallons in 2005 to 5 billion gallons in 2012. This amendment is very similar to the language we overwhelmingly passed out of this body in the last Congress as part of a comprehensive Energy bill package. It represents the culmination of a historic fuels agreement negotiated by the agriculture, renewable fuels, petroleum, and environmental communities over the past several years.

Unfortunately, the agreement--the amendment we passed overwhelmingly last year--did not become law in 2002 due to the demise of the Energy bill in conference negotiations. This year, we must pass the renewable fuels standard and have it signed into law by the President, who has indicated his support for this.

The renewable fuels standard is truly an energy security measure. The former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, James Woolsey, believes the renewable fuels standard is an essential component in the advancement of America's energy security. His sentiments have been echoed as well by ADM Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Robert McFarlane, former National Security Adviser under President Reagan.

The renewable fuels standard will displace about 1.6 billion barrels of imported oil over the next decade. As a result of this, we will save $4 billion in imported oil each year. This is a critically important first step toward energy independence for America.

As far as our economy goes, this renewable fuels standard amendment will add about $156 billion to our gross domestic product by 2012, spurring about $5.3 billion in new investment and creating 214,000 new jobs. It will boost farm income by $1.3 billion annually.

I am very proud of the example set by my own State of Iowa where we have 12 plants producing more than one-fifth of U.S. ethanol. We have two biodiesel plants, which place Iowa first in the Nation in producing this soy-based fuel. Thirty percent of our corn crop goes into value- added ethanol production, supporting over 1,500 jobs, and pumping nearly $50 million annually into our State's economy, which is of critical help to our rural communities.

These biofuels plants serve as local economic engines--providing high-paying jobs, capital investment opportunities, increased local tax revenue, and value-added markets for our farmers. A very large share of this production in Iowa is in plants built with the investments of farmer-owners.

I want to add a statement. I was looking at one of the charts my friend from California, Senator Feinstein, had, which showed that Archer Daniels Midland had 46 percent of the production capacity--I think is what the chart showed--and all the rest of the plants around filled in the other 54 percent.

Well, it is true that Archer Daniels Midland has been a leader in ethanol production in this country. I commend them for it. They have really paved the way. They broke through the barrier. They invested the money in finding new ways and new technologies and a cost-effective means of producing and distributing ethanol. So I believe it would be normal for a company such as Archer Daniels Midland to have a significant share of production capacity because they were there first. They recognized the environmental impact it would have in cleaning up the environment, the impact it would have on saving us from imported oil, the impact it would have on local jobs and the economies in many States, and what it would mean to replace a potentially carcinogenic octane enhancer called MTBE.

So, yes, I commend Archer Daniels Midland for being a leader many years ago in starting to produce ethanol before many others even really thought about it. It is a very forward-looking company. They were there from the beginning.

I would point out, however, that most of the new productive capacity coming on line in America is from farmer-owned cooperatives, farmer- owned plants. They are the ones building the new plants in cities and communities that dot our countryside. I think you have to look at this in that context.

So, yes, I commend Archer Daniels Midland for being a leader in this many years ago, and for bringing us to the point where now we can spin off and spur more ethanol plant construction throughout the United States that basically is owned by smaller entities or by farmers themselves.

As I said, these plants serve as local economic engines in so many of our communities. The value-added benefits of ethanol mean a $2 bushel of corn is converted into $5 of fuel and feed coproducts. That is another thing that people forget, that once we take the alcohol out of the corn, we have a very valuable byproduct left that can be fed to livestock, basically to cattle. So you get kind of two bangs for the buck out of it.

The renewable fuels standard is more than just about increasing this use of fuels; it is more than just about cutting down on the imported oil; it is more than just the economic engines that it provides in many communities; it is also about providing a healthy and

sustainable environment for future generations.

Ethanol and biodiesel greatly benefit public health and the environment by protecting air and water quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They are nontoxic, biodegradable, energy efficient, and cleaner burning sources of energy than petroleum-based fuels. A new report by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change finds that ethanol- blended fuels offer us the greatest promise for reducing transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions over the next 15 years.

The U.S. Department of Energy has concluded that petroleum-based fuels account for 82 percent of carbon monoxide, which, according to the National Research Council, accounts for 20 percent of smog formation in cities. In contrast, the Environmental Protection Agency has determined that ethanol-blended fuels significantly reduce these emissions, and biodiesel nearly eliminates sulfur emissions that contribute to acid rain and reduces potential cancer-causing compounds.

Clearly, the renewable fuels standard represents a momentous opportunity to enhance our Nation's energy security, strengthen our economy, create jobs, boost farm and rural income, and help clean up our environment. The 5 billion gallons of renewable fuels that would ultimately be required by the renewable fuels standard would replace gasoline we currently get from foreign oil, and at the same time reduce the price at the pump. Simply put, renewable fuels make good, common sense for our Nation and all of its citizens.

More to the point of the amendment now before us by the Senator from California on State exemptions--there is really no need to grant States exemptions right now because in the underlying bill it already provides for States to be able to apply for and be granted an EPA waiver if they can show the RFS severely harms the economy or environment of the State or if there is an inadequate domestic supply or distribution capacity to meet the requirement. So, really, the amendment offered by the Senator from California is unneeded because there is already a waiver provision in there.

Well, our renewable fuels standard is something we passed last year overwhelmingly with bipartisan support. I know there will be several attempts here to weaken it. I hope we again have, as we did last year, overwhelming bipartisan support to keep this strong renewable fuels standard in this bill and, get this Energy bill through and to the President so he can sign it this year.

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

Mr. President, the debt resolution that we have before us raises the debt limit by $984 billion--a record, the biggest ever in the history of the United States. What does that mean for the average American family? It means we are adding the equivalent of $3,500 to the credit card of every man, woman, and child in America. For a family of four, you just got $14,000 added to your family's debt. These are

new charges. That is just what we are about to vote on here. This is the new debt on top of the old debt. Now that is the debt.

How about the interest charges? Under the President's budget, we will see interest on the debt rise from an estimated $240 billion this year to $514 billion in 10 years under the assumptions of the budget pushed through by the majority that closely followed the President's plan in many respects. That is $1,800 a year for every person in the country. That is just on the interest, $7,200 a year for a family of four in 2013 and higher sums thereafter. The ranking member of the Finance Committee, the Senator from Montana, said it right: We are imposing, No. 1, a debt tax on our children and grandchildren. But we are also imposing an interest debt tax on our families.

We just went through this whole thing about this tax bill that skews everything to the wealthy. We all know that. Yet what about our families? I am sure they will say: We got some good things for families. We got a little marriage penalty thing there; we have a child credit, all that. But in 10 years, the interest just on the debt we are voting on today will be $7,200 a year for a family of four, right out of their taxes, $7,200 a year. Tell me about how much we have helped our families with this crazy tax bill we just passed this morning?

And right now, I think the vote we are about to take on this debt bill says it all. Tax cuts for those at the top, a few little things for working families, but we are going to gouge the working families of this country by making them pay the interest on the national debt-- $7,200 a year for a family of four, just on the interest.

More and more every year we go down the pike, more and more of the taxes that our hard-working Americans pay will go for what? To pay the interest on the national debt. Will we get any more education? No. Will we pay our teachers better? No. Will we invest more in medical research? No. Will we have better prescription drugs for the elderly? No. We won't do all those things because it is going to go to pay the interest on the national debt. That is what we are about to vote on right here.

Just the other day I went over to the Cannon House Office Building. They had a big demonstration there of fuel cells, renewable energy. That is what we ought to be investing in. That is what the Government should be investing in to make us energy independent. Guess what. We won't put the resources into that important need like we should. We will dribble a little bit here and there, but we won't do it right. Why? Because we are paying interest on the national debt. And why are we raising the debt? Because we have this big tax cut. Why do we have this big tax cut? It does please the wealthy contributors of the Republican Party. That is a part of it.

Now we are going to vote to increase the national debt, put it on the backs of every man, woman, and child in the Nation.

Well, there is one other thing. Because of this exploding debt and the interest on the debt that we will have to pay, it is a threat to the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. The President's tax plan is larger, if made permanent, then the entire 75 year estimated shortfall in both Social Security and Medicare. Later this year, the President says he wants us to work a prescription drug benefit for the elderly for $400 billion. He is going to squeeze everybody into HMOs type organizations. Why? Because we don't have enough money to pay for a good plan because it is going to pay the interest on the national debt so we can cover outrageous giveaways to the very wealthy.

I might talk about Medicare fairness. We voted this week on an amendment offered by my colleague from Iowa to take care of some Medicare fairness. Eighty-six Senators voted for it. It was not in the President's plan. The President said, no, we can't do that now. It is squeezing everything out.

I want to talk about the specifics of my amendment, to provide for a true cost of tax bills requirement. The official score or estimate of what the tax bill is supposed to cost is $350 billion. But, that is not what really occurred. Don't take my word for it, take the word of the Speaker of the House. This was in Congress Daily today:

Although the $350 billion tax cut bill moving toward

President Bush's desk is half of the original request, House

Speaker Hastert told Congress Daily Thursday that the final

package incorporates key features of the House plan. ``The

350 billion number takes us through the next 2 years

basically,'' Hastert said. ``But also it could end up being a

trillion-dollar bill because this stuff is extendable. That

is a fight we are going to have to have, and it is not a bad

fight to have.''

There you go. It is not $350 billion. It is closer to $1 trillion. The editorial in the Washington Post this morning said the same thing.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, if we keep these tax breaks going, the total cost will be a minimum of $815 billion. And now, after all of that, what are we asked to do? Go to the well and vote for the largest increase in the national debt ever held paying for this tax break for the wealthy.

My amendment is very simple. I call it the ``telling the true cost of the tax bill'' requirement. The premise is that Congress and the American people should know the real cost of major tax provisions--not the Enron kind of budgeting we have had for this tax bill.

My amendment would require the Joint Tax Committee to reveal the true 10-year cost of provisions in the tax bill that cost over $1 billion a year when fully in effect. In other words, to show the full cost, the Joint Tax Committee would provide true costs regardless of the variety of gimmicks we have seen used in the 2001 tax bill, as well as the tax bill being passed this morning.

If a provision sunsets early, the cost will be provided as if it is in place for the full 10-year period. That is what this amendment does. I have the amendment here. I will send it to the desk.

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

Mr. President, look, one more time. The reason we cannot have amendments to this bill is because the House has gone home? We are going to have the biggest increase in the national debt this country has ever seen and the House went home? That is why we cannot amend it?

Please explain that to my constituents in Iowa, or anywhere in the country, that somehow it makes sense that we cannot amend it because the House went home and we are going to have the biggest increase in debt in this country.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Wyden and other colleagues in sponsoring this amendment on contracting in Iraq and in support of the Warner-Boxer amendment No. 826. One of our key objectives for our work in Iraq is to convince the Iraqi people, other nations in the Mideast, and our allies that we are not occupying Iraq to get their oil and benefit big American corporations. We are there to provide the Iraqi people with basic services and infrastructure, human rights, and a more representative government. Given the massive problems we are having there, it is equally important to enable oversight by--and provide information for--Congress and the American people as well.

So it is unfortunate that we have started the reconstruction in Iraq on exactly the wrong note. Contracts have been let in secrecy, without open competition, to friends of the administration. The Army Corps of Engineers gave a contract that they thought was potentially worth $7 billion to Halliburton with no competition at all. The contract is classified, and I have been told the reason it is classified is classified too. And information about it has only dribbled out. First we were told it was just to put out oil well fires. Later is slipped out that production and distribution of oil were included as well. Was this in the interest of the Iraqi people? Did they consider investigations suggesting excessive charges in previous Halliburton contracts? how can we tell?

The Agency for International Development, under guidance from the Pentagon, has also let contracts in secrecy with only limited competition between hand-picked companies. Bechtel, with its own ties to the administration, got the largest one. Again we don't know how they chose these companies.

These practices must end if we are to obtain the trust of people at home or abroad. And I have to say it is not clear that results so far justify this unusual way of doing things.

This modest amendment simply says that if the administration is going to let contracts for Iraqi reconstruction without full and open competition, it has to tell Congress and the American people what it is doing. They have to give the amount of the contract, the scope, a description of who was allowed to compete and why, and documents on why they did not allow full competition. Classified information could be redacted, but would still be given to appropriate Congressional committees.

Similarly, the Warner-Boxer amendment requires competitive contracting for reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry. If the administration does not cut off the Halliburton contract by August 31 and allow full competition for that work, as it has said it would, the amendment requires report to Congress.

The amendments will not ensure open competition, but at least they will bring daylight to shine on the administration's activities, and will allow the American and Iraqi people to see what is being done with our money and their future.