[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 61 (Tuesday, April 17, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4553-S4554]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            WORKING TOGETHER

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a couple of topics. 
Certainly we have a lot of issues facing us. We have a lot of things to 
do. Quite frankly, we have been moving rather slowly over the last 
several months. We have had one bill signed by the President. We need 
to decide how we are going to move forward. The leader was talking 
about the Republicans holding up bills, and so on. We need to 
understand that we are close enough in this Senate on numbers and 
voting that we are going to have to have some agreements on things 
before we lay them out. Neither side is going to be able to say, Here 
is the way we are going, because it is close. We do have different 
views. When there is legislation pending, the minority side has 
amendments they wish to offer.
  On the other hand, I admit that sometimes the minority side wants to 
hold things up, and we can't do that either. So I hope we will look for 
a little more. I don't expect us to come together with everything, but 
we need to come together with a system which allows us to talk about 
our differences and to reach some agreements.
  I wish to comment on a couple of issues. The first one, of course, is 
the one that almost everyone has on their mind today, as the Senator 
from Utah indicated. This is tax day. Americans have reached deep into 
their pockets today to pay their Federal income tax. At the same time, 
we are straining to understand the Tax Code that governs how much we 
owe. It is very complicated. All of us understand that, particularly 
today, or as we ask for an extension, because it is so complicated and 
so difficult to actually arrive at a conclusion with respect to taxes.
  I am not sure it has to be that way. The Senator from Utah has 
described some changes that ought to be made. We talk about that always 
at tax time, and then we seem to get away from it when tax time is 
over. We ought to stay in there and ask: How can we do this job? There 
have to be taxes paid. Obviously, there has to be some fairness among 
the taxpayers. But does it need to be this complicated? Does it need to 
be this technical? We find ourselves with a tax program that is 
designed by literally hundreds of programs that are more put in place 
to affect behavior and to affect how things are going to happen than 
they are for taxes. We will give tax relief for this, if you will do 
this. If you do this, we will give you tax relief over here. The next 
thing you know, we have such a complicated plan.
  The average American has a great deal of trouble understanding and 
complying with the Tax Code. The vast majority of the taxpayers use tax 
preparers, even in the simplest of tax situations. We in Congress get 
frustrated with the lack of compliance with the Code; i.e., the tax gap 
that we hear so much about. It is apparently substantial in terms of 
the amount of money involved. But the average American is as frustrated 
by sincerely trying to comply with the system in most cases. I 
understand the tax gap. Maybe there are some people who are actually 
trying to avoid taxes. But often the tax gap is simply because of the 
complexity.
  The good news, of course, is the economy is strong. That is good 
news. The economic policies of the last 6 years are working and have 
continued to contribute to the growth of the economy, to encourage 
investment, and to encourage job creation. Our economy has added jobs 
for 43 straight months; 7.8 million since August 2003. This is good, 
particularly when we look at the changes in the world economy. Again, 
the Senator from Utah was talking about that. As we continue to grow 
jobs, that is a very good thing.

  The economy has added jobs to the extent of 7.8 million over this 
period of time. The national employment rate has fallen to 4.4 percent 
last month. Average earnings grew 4 percent last year. The elements of 
the economy are good. Interestingly enough, largely because of the Iraq 
situation, we don't hear much about the good economy or about the good 
things going on in the country. That is too bad. The strong economy has 
resulted in stronger tax revenues in 2006.
  It is important, as we talk about taxes, that we maintain progrowth 
taxes in economic policy, the idea of extending those tax benefits 
which have helped to bring about this growth is important. We are at a 
point where some of them will expire within the next couple of years. 
They are the kinds of benefits that one needs to know about before tax 
time so investments can and will be made because of the benefits. The 
policies in place are working. I don't think we ought to mess with 
success. At the same time, we have already passed as part of the budget 
an almost $1 trillion tax increase. Additionally, the budget that was 
passed by the other side of the aisle increased spending and the size 
of Government. I am concerned about that. These policies will undo all 
the good that has been done over the last several years. It is kind of 
a game: What taxes are you going to have to beat to offset spending now 
and saying it doesn't need to be. But the fact is, it does. From 2008 
to 2011, the budget will increase the deficit by $440 billion and 
increase the gross debt by $2.2 trillion, if we go on as is now 
suggested. The budget ignores the impending Medicare and Social 
Security crises. In fact, it would make it even worse by spending more 
than a trillion of the Social Security surplus.
  When we talk about taxes, we also have to talk about the size, scope, 
and role of the Federal Government. It is time we look at some of the 
things we are doing and wonder why they need to be done by the Federal 
Government and whether, in fact, they should be done by State and local 
governments or, in fact, the private sector. We should not be using tax 
policy as a substitute for direct appropriations and encouraging 
behavior. That is what we have gotten into. We have talked a lot in 
recent years about tax reform. It is high time we put it into action, 
whether it is a flat tax, which is difficult to understand but is used 
in some places around the world--it seems to be workable--or whether it 
is a tax that is put on the items that people purchase which would be a 
little difficult to sell. An acquisition tax is one that is being 
talked about. But we ought to get away from the behavior tax and get 
back down to a simplified tax.
  We need taxes. The Government has to be funded and should be funded 
in a fair way. But it needs to be done in a different way.
  Let me move to Medicare and the noninterference issue that may be 
coming up very soon. That is the competition on the Part D program by 
having the Government do the sort of work that needs to be done in the 
private sector and having a change in the way this thing is operating. 
I think Part D, which is rather new and still being incorporated but is 
pretty deeply involved in participation at this point--90 percent of 
Medicare beneficiaries have drug coverage--is very good. Folks are 
saving a considerable

[[Page S4554]]

amount of money under the program. On average seniors are saving $1,200 
yearly on drug costs. A survey reported 80 percent of seniors are happy 
with the Part D benefits that went into effect recently. Folks in 
Wyoming are certainly telling me they like the plans that are available 
there. There are fewer plans available in a smaller population State 
than there are in some others. Nevertheless, there are plans available. 
They are available at the local drugstore, and they have an option of 
several plans from which to choose which is very important for us to 
maintain in the Part D program.
  The costs are 30 percent lower than the original estimates, and it 
has caused competition. It has caused the private sector to come about 
with reduced estimates. That is very good. Even the expert the 
Democratic majority put in place to head up the Congressional Budget 
Office says this legislation that is proposed to have the Government do 
the negotiations with drug companies would not save money, according to 
the CBO. In an April 10 letter to Chairman Baucus, the CBO writes:

       We anticipate that under the bill the Secretary would lack 
     the leverage to negotiate prices under the broad range of 
     covered Part D drugs that are more favorable than those 
     obtained by Prescription Drug Plans under current law. 
     Without the authority to establish a formulary or other tools 
     to reduce drug prices, we believe that the Secretary would 
     not obtain significant discounts from drug manufacturers 
     across a broad range of drugs.

  CBO also testified that negotiating Medicare drug prices could make 
costs go up for everyone else. We have to understand we need a drug 
program, a Medicare program for everyone. There are certain ways it 
would have to be done for the elderly, for the underfinanced, and so 
on. But the plan needs to be there for everyone.
  The Government Accountability Office has said price fixing may result 
in limited access. You can imagine if there is negotiation on prices, 
some of the pharmaceutical companies are going to say: OK, we are not 
going to offer this drug; we won't offer that drug. Under this plan, 
you have alternatives and alternative programs from which you can 
choose to take on different ideas.
  Why do we want to take away a plan that has been moving toward 
success and still has an opportunity for more success and change it 
before that opportunity has been worked through? Last week the Finance 
Committee, of which I am a member, held a markup to consider the 
pending legislation. We asked the proponents of that to come up with 
their plans. Frankly, they didn't have any specifics as to how this 
would be handled.
  With just the idea we would have the Government negotiate, it sounds 
like, wow, we would come up with some real good stuff. The fact is--the 
bottom line is--I think most of us want to see the market work. When 
there is competition, when there are these kinds of things, it does 
cause the market to work.
  So I think before we pass any bill, we should know and consider, find 
out, as clearly as we can, what impact it has on the folks. We do not 
want to talk too much, it seems, on the Senate floor about how that 
will work. I think we should talk about how it works.
  I have great respect for my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, but they believe expanding the Government is the way to solve 
health problems. I do not agree. I do not believe Government price 
fixing is the answer to the question.
  Current law has increased choices, has lowered prices through market 
competition, and that is the system we have in this country. Market 
competition is where we need to go. So we should let the market 
continue to work and say, as the saying goes, ``if it ain't broke, 
don't fix it.'' So I think that is how we are challenged.
  I am hopeful we can move forward. I think we have a lot of things to 
do. We need to get on with immigration. I do not think there is 
anything more important to the country than to have an immigration law 
that works, that we have a closed border, that we have people coming to 
work legitimately and legally who return after their period of work or 
go through the process for becoming citizens. The system we have now is 
not working, and we need to change that.
  I think energy continues to be a factor in the future, very clearly. 
There is no doubt there is going to be more demand. There is no doubt 
there is going to be a more difficult time in acquiring energy sources 
from around the world. We have to depend more on our own, including 
alternatives. I think alternatives are a very good solution over time 
as we find out ways to use them and use them in the volumes that are 
necessary to fill our needs.
  In the meantime, I think we need to be very careful to assist in 
developing those things we know how to do now that will make us have 
supplies in the interim as we wait for these alternatives to develop--
coal, for example. Coal is our largest fossil resource. We know ways to 
have plants develop electricity from coal, where we can extract carbon, 
reinject the carbon, help with the climate change, and at the same time 
have a supply of energy we need.
  So these are some of the things I guess I am a little frustrated we 
cannot move toward. We spend too much time hassling over some of these 
problems that should not take that long. We should get on with dealing 
with health care, get on with dealing with energy, get on with dealing 
with immigration, get on with dealing with spending, get on with 
dealing with the size of the budget. These are the real issues out 
there that I think the American people--and I am sure Wyoming people--
are concerned about.
  So I urge we move as quickly as we can, working together, so we can 
find ways to move forward and solve some of the problems that are 
before us.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________